Skip to main content

Full text of "Works"

See other formats 


very! eat Faviet er ah pervs 
Ἐκ τ αν ΚΝ 

ἐξ ΟΝ ΓΗ stakes i pee 
i BY ᾿ ᾿ ρου φὴ yet non Ὁ ἢ 


11: 


μὰ 


rat thd 
ene 


om 


Μ᾿ 
. 
+ 

i 


Petits 
i fest an 
EW 


xk 
ἘΞ - 


aaa 
= 


ob 
> 
45) 


DU 


Poke 
MPLS, 
See 


tat aka! 
Prien) 
ΡΝ 
wipe) 


Ἵ 
Ht 


UNIVERSITY OF TORON 


Inn 


ss 
<> 


J 
Ἢ 
tetatese 
Mat 


᾿- 

Len 
Une 

Hey 


ΡΝ 
Aruba ie 


ἜΜ 

sas 

Sitataetesy 
ἈΠΝΌΝΧΗ 
gtatata 


᾿ ΠΝ τας ν 
Ὁ 
ΕΠ. }6] 


tS, 


pase) 
Thetetets 


= 


μι 


τ = a 
* seas aie 
eee = 
Ets ere τ τς eee 
SRS 
SSS 


Pty PGS 


> ἍΜ Lene) yi y 
AT tae ΣΡ ᾿ ΡΟ ny 
ΕἸ ia . ype c 

Paes rhe ΜΗ " <i a ΣΝ ὍΝ 

ΕἾΝ ὌΡΉΡΝ 


4 
id 
as 


Risa Rats 
δ χε τς 
ie 
δεῖς 


—_ 


AAA A 


aga’ 
bee 
Setahe] 


ieee ᾿ 


ον αν 
AA, 


ἣν 
ms) 
Lia 


Sahat sa 
ui Sach eae 


bree? 
raya ed 4 

CS 
Moa Κι 


Biopbyrs? 
Nasty 


tard sheeted SAS 
hati 


Pape 
αν ἐν 











eer 


SSS : SaaS: 
SS 





ἐπ ὶ 
Coe 
Ws ἮΝ 
ἜΝ, 
it 





THE 


WORKS 


OF THE 


MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, 


WEEE IAM LAUD, Dv 


SOMETIME LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 


ΘΙ: 


CONFERENCE WITH FISHER. 


OXFORD: 
JOHN HENRY PARKER. 


M DCCC XLIX. 


LONDON: 
Rk. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL. 


A 


RELATION 


OF 


THE CONFERENCE 


BETWEEN 


WILLIAM LAUD, 


LATE 


LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, 


AND 


MR. FISHER THE JESUIT, 


BY THE COMMAND OF KING JAMES, 


OF EVER BLESSED MEMORY. 


WITH 


AN ANSWER 


TO SUCH EXCEPTIONS AS A. C. TAKES AGAINST IT. 


THE SIXTH EDITION. 





OXFORD: 
JOHN HENRY PARKER. 


MDCCC XLIX, 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/workswillaud02lauduoft | 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


PERSONAL and oral Conferences on the points disputed at 
the Reformation were not of rare occurrence. In form they 
were, perhaps, the legitimate successors of the disputations 
of the Schools; but gradually their technical and scientific 
shape merged into the more popular, but perhaps more in- 
teresting, written controversial discussion of modern times. 
Archbishop Laud’s Conference, while it is one of the tater 
instances of the ancient method, betrays by its subsequent 
adaptation to the shape of a regular treatise, that the 
influence and value of mere scholastic discussion was felt to 
have passed away. The Conferences, however, of which so 
many are on record during the first century of the Reforma- 
tion, must be distinguished. Some were strictly scholastic 
acts, as those connected with the deprivation of Archbishop 
Cranmer, and Ridley’s disputations at Oxford ; some were 
formal discussions upon fixed propositions, such as those 
debated in Westminster Abbey, between the leading divines 
of the reformed doctrines and their opponents, in 1559; and 
some were of a more private nature, either for eliciting the 
truth on the part of the disputants, or for the sake of gaining 
or retaining a more distinguished convert or adherent to 


either side. 
A ὃ 


[vi] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


Among these may be mentioned: the disputations conducted 
by Feckenham, the last Abbot of Westminster, at the Savoy— 
at Sir William Cecil’s—at Sir John Cheke’s; the Conference 
between Redmayne and Wilks at Westminster, in 1551; the 
Conference between Campian the Jesuit, in 1581, assisted by 
Sherwin, against Nowel, Fulke, and others, in the Tower ; 
the well-known discussion between Rainolds and Hart, in 
1583, in the Tower; [Robert] Parsons’ “ Review of Ten 
public Disputations or Conferences, held within the com- 
pass of Four Years, under King Edward and Queen Mary, 
concerning some principal points in Religion ;”* Fitz- 
Simon’s dispute with Ussher, then only nineteen years 
of age, in Dublin Castle, in 1599. During the reign 
of King James, partly perhaps occasioned by that monarch’s 
personal taste for theological argument, which was espe- 
cially exhibited in one of the first transactions of his 
reign, the well-known Hampton Court Conference, many 
of these oral discussions were held. Walsingham disputed 
with Covel and other doctors of the Church of England, 
in 1604. Bagshaw and Stephens, on the Roman Catholic 
side, disputed before Lord Clifford, the English ambassador 
at Paris, against Fairclough, better known under the name 
of Featley, then Chaplain to the Embassy, in 1612. Smith, 
subsequently Bishop of Chalcedon, held a personal Confer- 
ence with Featley, who was much engaged in these disputes. 
Featley and Goad disputed against Musket (alias Fisher), 
and Percy, commonly called “ Fisher the Jesuit,’ in 1621. 
Featley also disputed against Everard, in 1626; and previously, 
at a Conference held at the house of Sir Humphrey Lynde, 
in 1623, assisted by Dr. White, he had been engaged in a 


Ἀ Title-page of a work of Parsons, under the name of N{icholas] D[oleman. | 
St. Omer’s, 1604. 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [vii | 


similar personal discussion with Fisher and another Jesuit 
named Sweet. 

These public controversies were not confined to the cham- 
pions of the two Churches. During the Usurpation, the 
different sectaries often discussed their mutual differences in 
this way: Vavasor Powell and John Goodwin held a dispu- 
tation in Coleman-street, London, in 1649; John Reading 
disputed publicly in Folkestone Church with Samuel Fisher, 
an Anabaptist, in 1650; Tombes the Anabaptist, and Baxter 
“disputed face to face, and their followers were like two 
armies,” (Ant. Wood, in Life of Tombes;) Tombes also held 
a public dispute against Vaughan and Cragge, at Aber- 
gavenny, in 1658. This mode of controversy was recurred 
to by the Caroline divines, not only in the Civil War, but 
during the Usurpation, both at home and abroad. Gunning 
held two or three set disputations with a Roman Catholic 
priest, for the satisfaction of his patron, Sir Robert Shirley, 
according to Ant. Wood, who adds that “ there was no con- 
siderable sect, but he held with them, some time or other, a 
set public disputation, in defence of the Church of England.”? 
A public conference was held at Brussels, in 1649, between 
Morley, and D’Arcy, a Jesuit. 


The occasion of one of the most celebrated of these Con- 


Ὁ Accounts are extant of two of these conferences: 1. “ A Contention for 
Truth; in two several public disputations, before thousands of people, in the 
Church of 5. Clement Danes, without Temple Bar, on the 19 and 26 November, 
1657, between Peter Gunning and Hen. Denn, on Infant Baptism, London, 
1658.”—2. “Schism Unmasked: or a late Conference between Mr. Peter Gun- 
ning and Mr. John Pierson [subsequently Bishop of Chester, and author of the 
celebrated work on the Creed], Ministers, and two disputants of the Romish 
persuasion. Paris, 1658.” This publication came from the Roman Catholic 
side, and was edited by Spenser, a priest, (Dodd’s Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p. 313,) one 
of those engaged in the Conference, with whom was associated Dr. Lenthall, 
though other names have been given as those of the Roman Catholic disputants, 
viz. John White, and Johnson, alias Terret. (Cf. Wood’s Athen Oxon. ed. Bliss, 
vol. iy. col. 144.) 


[viii | EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


ferences, that between Laud and Fisher, is connected with 
political as well as theological considerations. 

The rise and fortunes of George Villiers, Duke of Bucking- 
ham, were so remarkable, that they invested not only with 
interest, but importance, every thing connected with his 
family. And during the reign of the Stuarts, the religious 
professions of those about the Court were matters of earnest 
solicitude, because of great political consequence, to the King. 
The mother of the Duke of Buckingham, Lady Villiers, 
though she had contracted a second marriage with Sir 
Thomas Compton, a private gentleman, had been created 
Countess of Buckingham, soon after her son had _ first 
received his title. This lady was converted to the Roman 
Catholic communion, by Fisher the Jesuit. It does not 
appear exactly at what time she joined the Church of Rome. 
Laud, in his Diary, 1622, April 23, speaks of “ the Countess 
of Buckingham, who about that time was wavering in point 
of religion;” and in the “ History of the Troubles and 
Trial,” &c. p. 226, he says that he “ brought the Lady 
his [Buckingham’s| mother to the Church again; but she 
was not so happy as to continue with us.” At any rate, 
whether at this time the Countess of Buckingham had 
actually conformed to the Church of Rome, or whether she 
was then only in a doubtful state, her change in religion is 
to be attributed to the arguments of one “ Fisher the Jesuit.” 
Her influence with her son was so great, that it was a saying 
of the time, recounted by Count Gondomar, the Spanish 
ambassador, with evident reference to her change in religion, 
that more intercession was made to the mother than to 
the son.! 


Besides being subject to this influence on the side of his 


© Clarendon. Book I. 4 Kehard’s History of England, vol. i. p. 953. 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [1x ] 


mother, the Duke of Buckingham had other inducements 
to favour the Roman Catholics ; and it was at the time hoped, 
by a combination of domestic circumstances, to bring him 
over to that communion. His wife, Lady Katharine Manners, 
only daughter and heiress of Francis, sixth Earl of Rutland, 
was also “ bred’’* a Roman Catholic. Echard says that she was 
for awhile persuaded by Dr. White to forsake this com- 
munion: but was quickly reclaimed by her mother-in-law, 
“a fiery Romanist.” If this were the case, she had been 
previously brought to some partial, if not entire, commu- 
nion with the Church of England as early as the year 1619, 
before her marriage with the Duke, then Marquis, of Buck- 
ingham in 1620, by Lord Keeper Willams (Hacket’s Life 
of Williams). It seems, however, plain that in the year 1622, 
the Countess of Buckingham, the mother, was either openly 
or secretly a Roman Catholic; so was the Marchioness of 
Buckingham the wife ; and of the Marquis himself, Archbishop 
Laud stated on his trial, (“ Troubles and Trial,” Se. p. 226,) 
«The Right Honourable the Lord Duke of Buckingham was 
almost lost from the Church of England between the conti- 
nual unceasing labours of Fisher the Jesuit and the persua- 
sions of the Lady his mother.” 

At this juncture it was, that Dr. White, as he intimates,! 
was invited by the Duke of Buckingham to undertake the 
settlng of his mother: from internal evidence, however, 
it seems more probable that even in the first instance 
King James, alarmed for the religious profession of his 
favourite, suggested a conference as the means really of 
confirming the Marquis himself, ostensibly for the purpose 
of settling the Countess. Dr. Francis White, Rector of 


© Hacket’s Life of Williams, p. 42. 
f Preface to his “‘ Replie to Jesuit Fisher,” &e. 


[x] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


St. Peter’s, Cornhill, and one of the Royal Chaplains,‘ was 
selected on the side of the Church of England, and between 
him and Fisher the Jesuit a personal conference was held 
in the presence of the Marquis of Buckingham, the Mar- 
chioness of Buckingham, the Countess of Buckingham, and 
Lord Keeper Williams, then Bishop of Lincoln, and subse- 
quently Archbishop of York." According to Fisher’s own 
account, (vide infra, App. Nos. 11. III. pp. xxiiiimxxvi.) a 
paper of his addressed to the Countess, came to some hands, 
unquestionably those of the Marquis, who gave it to Dr. 
White to answer and “ oppugn it in a Conference.” 

Shortly afterwards a second Conference was held between 
the same parties, at which the King himself was present ; 
who “ having observed that our adversaries are cunning and 
subtle, in eluding our arguments brought against them, but 
of no strength, especially in particular questions, when they 
come to the κατασκευὴ and confirmation of their own tenet, 
was himself pleased to have nine questions of controversy 
propounded to the Jesuit, that he might in writing manifest 
the grounds and arguments whereupon the Popish faith in 
those points was builded.” (White’s Preface.) 

Besides the King’s dissatisfaction with the result of these 
first two Conferences, it appears that the Countess of Buck- 
ingham required from the English Divines, according to 
Fisher, more distinct argument on the doctrine of “a con- 
tinual, infallible, visible Church.” (Vide infra, Conference, 
&e. p.2.) To meet this difficulty, the King himself imposed 
upon Dr. William Laud, then Bishop of 8. David’s, the duty 
of meeting Fisher in a Third Conference before the same 

& Successively Dean of Carlisle in 1622; Bishop of Carlisie in 1626; of 
Norwich in 1628 ; and of Ely in 1631. 


» Vide infra, p. xxvi. App. No. III. “ A few but very honourable persons . 
L, 1 Ge Me Bi Berend iiss. 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xi] 


parties. The allusions to this Conference, contained in 
Laud’s Diary, are these :— 


“1622. April23. Being the Tuesday in Easter week, the King sent for me 
and set me into a course about the Countess of Buckingham, who about 
that time was wavering in point of religion. 

“ April 24. Dr. Francis White and I met about this. 

“ May 10. I went to the court to Greenwich, and came back in coach with 
the lord marquess Buckingham. My promise then to give his lordship 
the discourse he spake to me for. 


“ May 19. I delivered my lord marquess Buckingham the paper concerning 


the difference between the Church of England and Rome, in point of 
salvation, &c. 


“ May 23. My first speech with the Countess of Buckingham. 
“ May 24. The conference between Mr. Fisher, a Jesuit, and myself, before 


the lord marquess Buckingham, and the Countess, his mother. I had 
much speech with her after. 


“June 9. Being Whit-Sunday, my lord marquess Buckingham was pleased 
to enter upon a near respect to me. The particulars are not for paper. 
“ June 15. I became C. to my lord of Buckingham.” 


Strict secrecy on the particulars of these several Confer- 
ences had been enjoined on the parties concerned in them ; 
but according to Dr.White, Fisher had “ dispersed hundreds 
of papers on the subject of the Third Conference to his 
own praise and our disgrace, for had we been school-boys of 
thirteen years old, he could not have made a reverend Bishop 
and myself seem more childish and unskilful than he did.” 
(Preface.) White, however, though he “at first proposed 
to have published im print a narration of his two disputa- 
tions,” (ibid.) yet thought it desirable to wait for Fisher’s 
written answer to the nine points proposed as the chief 
errors of the Church of Rome, by King James. These sub- 
jects were thus enumerated in “ His Majesty’s note delivered 
unto Mr. Fisher.” “ Some of the principal points which with- 
held my joming unto the Church of Rome, except she reform 
herself, or be able to give me satisfaction, are these: 1. The 
Worship of Images. 2. The Prayings and offering Oblations 


to the B.V. M. 3. Worshipping and Invocation of Saints 


[xu] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


and Angels. 4. The Liturgy and private Prayers in an 
unknown tongue. 5. Repetitions of Pater Nosters, Aves, 
and Creeds, especially affixing a kind of merit to the number 
of them. 6. The doctrine of Transubstantiation. 7. Com- 
munion under one kind, and the abetting it by concomitancy. 
8. Works of Supererogation, especially with reference unto 
the Treasure of the Church. 9. The opinion of Deposing 
Kings, giving away their kingdoms by papal power, whether 
directly or indirectly.’ (The Answer unto the Nine Points, 
&e. p. 2.) To eight of these questions Fisher returned an 
answer in manuscript, declining a reply to the last “ with 
a rhetorical declamation,’ (White, Preface,) stating that the 
rules of his order forbad his interference with state affairs. 
“ But before the nine questions he placeth a large dis- 
putation (provided no doubt aforehand, and expecting only a 
prosperous wind of occasion, to send it abroad,) touching 
the Rule of Faith, concerning Scripture and Tradition, the 
Notes of the Church, &c. Then, to counterpoise the King’s 
Nine Articles, he chargeth our Church with nine remark- 
able errors, as he accounteth them.” (White, Preface.) 

In the meantime, Bishop Laud, as early as Michaelmas 
1622, had prepared his Relation of the Third Conference, 
with especial reference to what he calls Fisher’s “ papers full 
of partiality to his cause, and more full of calumny against 
the Bishop.” (Preface to R. B.’s Answer to Mr. Fisher’s 
Relation, &c.) It does not appear at what time Fisher 
delivered his answer to the nine poimts to the King εἶ but 
it was not till April 10, 1624, that White was ready with his 
“ Replhie to Jesuit Fisher’s Answere to certain Questions 
propounded by his most gracious Majestie King James: 

‘ Hen. More, (Hist. Province. Anglie. Soc. Jesu. p. 382,) says that Fisher 


“finished his answer in a month, but that it was some time before it reached 
the King.” ‘ 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xiii] 


Hereunto is annexed a Conference of the right R. B. of 
St. David’s with the same Jesuit.” For the publication of 
Dr. White’s work Bishop Laud’s own account of the Confer- 
ence, already prepared, was delayed; which appeared at length 
only as an accompaniment to the larger work of Dr. White, 
and was published under the initials R[ichard] Bfaily] the 
Bishop’s chaplain, and with the title, “An Answere to Mr. 
Fisher’s Relation of a Third Conference betweene a certaine 
B. (as he stiles him) and himselfe. The Conference was 
very private, till Mr. Fisher spread certaine papers of it, 
which in many respects deserved an Answere. Which is 
here given by R. B. Chapleme to the B. that was im- 
ployed in the Conference. London, Printed by Adam Islip. 
1624.” 

It was, however, Bishop Laud’s own work, as he subse- 
quently acknowledged, and constitutes, in this shape, the 
first edition, or rather the original sketch, of the volume now 
placed in the reader’s hands. How the work came to be 
afterwards enlarged and published in an independent form, 
and in his own name, after the author’s translation. to 
Canterbury, Archbishop Laud himself fully explains in his 
Dedication of it to King Charles, pp. ii.—xviii. of the 
present Edition. 

On the side of the Church of England, then, Dr. White’s 
share of the joimt Reply to Fisher may be considered as a 
complement to the argument which, according to the King’s 
judgment, the oral conferences had only partially worked 
out; while Bishop Laud’s Relation was designed rather to 
meet the antecedent question urged by Lady Buckingham, 
and embraced in Fisher’s preliminary “ Disputation touch- 
ing the Rule of Faith, Scripture, and Tradition, the Notes 
of the Church, &c.”’ 


[xiv | EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


It appears to be beyond doubt, that Fisher’s “ Short 
Relation of the Conference,” and his “ Answer to the Nine 
Points,” were at present only in manuscript. Both Dr. 
White and Bishop Laud, in their respective Answers, in the 
joint publication of 1624, recite the whole of Fisher’s manu- 
script papers, section by section, replying to each argument 
and assertion. Fisher had now to reply, which he did under 
the pseud-initials A. C. to Land’s account of the Conference ; 
while at the same time appeared, either from him or an 
associate, a “ Rejoinder to White’s Reply,” under the initials 
J. F. But the chronological order of the works in which the 
controversy proceeded, may be best understood by the fol- 
lowing synopsis :— 

I. Fisher’s Answer to the Nine Points, &c. presented to the 
King privately in MS. It was without notes. 

II. Fisher’s own Short Relation of the Conference, circu- 
lated privately, but largely, in MS. This was also without 
notes. 

III . White’s “Reply to Jesuit Fisher’s Answer, &c. 
together with Laud’s Account of the Third Conference ; 
under the initials R. B. London, 1624.” This jomt pro- 
duction incorporates Fisher’s two MS. works, (I. 11.) which 
are printed in their respective parts, in different type from 
the body of the work. 

IV. The “ Answer unto the Nine Points, &c. and the 
Rejoinder unto the Reply of Dr. Francis White, Minister. 
1625.” This incorporates No. I. and has many notes added 
by way of answer to White’s part of No. III. Prefixed to 
this volume is found “The true picture of the said Minister, 
or censure of his writings.” And the whole collection then 
has the title-page of 1626. This volume is rare: but copies 
are to be found of it. H. More (ubi sup.) intimates that 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xv] 


the notes are not Fisher’s, “Quo factum est ut denuo revisa 
prodierint [viz. Fisher’s ‘Answer to the Nine Points’] in 
lucem docto cum commentario Joannis Floydi,”’ * and Dodd, 
(Ch. History, vol. 1. p. 106, cf. vol. iii. p- 394,) by merely 
translating Alegambe (Biblioth. Scriptor. Soc. Jesu), with- 
out transcribing the exact titles, seems to attribute the 
whole work-both to Fisher and Floyd in their respective 
lives ; though Alegambe himself, writing in Latin, had, with 
greater accuracy, given the “ Rejoinder to White’s Reply ” 
to Floyd. The truth seems to be, that the whole of the first 
part of the work, “The Picture of Dr. White,’ together 
with the Prefaces and the “ Rejoinder to White’s Reply,” 
are Floyd’s; the original MS. of Fisher, presented to the 
king, the “ Answer unto the Nine Points,” No. I. being for 
the second time reprinted, as it had already been in “ White’s 
Reply,” and being now fully annotated and enlarged by 
Floyd. As, therefore, White and Laud were associated in 
No. III., so Fisher and Floyd were associated in this volume. 
In catalogues it is usually attributed to Fisher; and the 
identity of the initials J. F[isher] and J. F[loyd], which are 
attached to the Epistle Dedicatory, will at once account for 
the mistake; but not only is H. More’s statement positive as 
to Floyd’s larger share in the work, a statement corroborated 
by Dodd’s less direct testimony, but the Dedication to King 
Charles constantly uses the term “we,” with a plain refer- 
ence to an associated authorship. It appears, then, that as 
regards No. 1Π1., the jomt work of White and Laud, Floyd 
was entrusted to “rejoin”? to White, while Fisher reserved 
himself for an encounter with Laud, which he engaged in by 
publishing — 


« Floyd was the writer of the book “Contra Novatores” “Deus et Rex. 
St. Omer’s, 1620.” (Vide infra, p. 272, note d.) 


[xvi] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


V. Fisher’s “True Relations of sundry Conferences, &c.” 
1626, incorporating No. IT. with notes added by way of special 
answer to Laud’s part of No. III. This is a very rare work, 
which does not occur either in the Bodleian Library or in the 
British Museum; and for the loan of the only copy which 
the present Editor has heard of, he is indebted to the kind- 
ness of the Rev. Dr. Routh, the venerable President of 
S. Mary Magdalene College, Oxford. The whole of its intro- 
duction may be read consecutively from p. xix. to p. xl. of 
the present volume (Appendix, Nos. I. 11. III. TV.) Thence- 
forward the body of A. C.’s work is included in Laud’s own 
Relation, in which it is reprinted and answered paragraph 
by paragraph. It is not mentioned in the list of Fisher’s 
works in the Biblioth. Scriptor. Soc. Jesu, nor by Dodd, 
who follows that collection. Besides this, viz. A. C.’s 
account of the Conference between Dr. Francis White and 
Mr. John Fisher, A. C.’s collected volume of 1626 contains 
two other controversial pamphlets; one, “An Answer to a 
Pamphlet, intituled: The Fisher catched in his own Net, &c. 
1623,” pp. 86, (this refers to the discussion held between 
Fisher and Sweet against Drs. White and Featley, at the 
house of Sir Humphrey Lynde, in 1623;) and the other, 
“ A Reply to Ὁ. White and D. Featley. The First Part, &c. 
The Second Part, &c. 1625,” pp. 181. The title-page of the 
whole volume is given below, p. xix. It does not appear to 
have been widely circulated, being printed at St. Omer’s (?), 
and Laud (vide infra, p. vil.) observes that he did not meet 
with it till “some years after” its publication. 

VI. The present work, Laud’s “ Relation of the Conference, 
Χο. 1639.” To this appeared some specific answers ; viz. 
VII. “A Replie to a Relation of the Conference between 


William Laude and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite. By a Witnesse of 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xvii] 


Jesus Christ. Imprinted, anno 1640.” This is a puritan work 
of singular dulness and intense bitterness : it is very rare. 

VIII. “ Questions propounded for Resolution of unlearned 
Pretenders in matters of Religion, to the doctors of the pre- 
latical pretended Reformed Church of England, ἕο. Paris, 
[London?] 1657.” In the additions to Wood’s Athen 
Oxon. (ed. Bliss,) vol. iv. p. 144, this work is styled, an 
“answer to Dr. Laud’s work.” Its author was John Spenser, 
a Jesuit. (Cf. Dodd’s Ch. History, vol. 11. p. 313, and νυ. 
supra, p. [vii], note °.) 

IX. “ Labyrinthus Cantuariensis: or Dr. Laud’s Laby- 
rinth, &c. Paris [?]: Printed by John Billaine, 1658.” It 
purports to be by T. C. [arvell] a Jesuit, whose real name was 
Thorold. He was of a good Lincolnshire family, and died in 
London, 1664. Stillingfleet says that the date is fictitious, 
and that the book did not really appear till 1663, Thorold 
had two immediate answers: viz. 

X. “Of the Necessity of Reformation, &c. occasioned by 
some late virulent books written by Papists: but especially 
by that intituled Labyrinthus Cantuariensis. By Meric 
Casaubon. London, 1664.” 

XI. “A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant 
Religion, &c, being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of 
Canterbury’s Relation of a Conference from the pretended 
answer of T.C. By Edward Stillingfleet. 1664,” This forms 
the fourth volume of Stillingfleet’s works in the collected 
edition of 1709-10. 

John Serjeant, now very aged, who had been the anta- 
gonist of Archbishop Bramhall, took part in the dispute at 
this time, (cf. p. 84, note 1) : and Stillingfleet replied to him. 
Abraham Woodhead also engaged in it. It appears therefore 


that the direct discussion of the famous “ Conference 


VOL, II.—LAUD. b 


[xviil | EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


between Laud and Fisher” ranged over a period of exactly 
forty years. 

“ Fisher the Jesuit,’ of the Conferences—A. C., of the 
replies to White and Land—was only a name assumed by a 
person named Piersey, Piers, Percy, or Persy, for his name is 
spelled variously, of whom the following facts are recorded in 
the Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu, (ed. Alegambe 
et Sotwell, Rome, 1676)—in Dodd’s Ch. History—and in 
H. More, (Hist. Soc. Jesu.) He was born in the county of 
Durham, (Dodd and Wood say in Yorkshire)—and was con- 
verted at about the age of fourteen, by the influence of a 
Roman Catholic woman with whom he had been placed in 
lodgings by his family, in order to avail himself of the 
instruction of an elder brother,—educated at Rheims, and 
subsequently in the English College at Rome. He entered 
the Jesuit College at Tournay, and while meditating a journey 
to England in 1596, was seized at Flushing by some English 
soldiers, and sent prisoner to England, where he was almost 
immediately thrown into Bridewell. He was frequently 
imprisoned; but was at length released at the request of 
Queen Henrietta Maria. He died in London of a cancer, 
after two years’ illness, being then above seventy years of age; 
the date of his death is not exactly recorded; but he was 
alive in 1641. (Cf. Dodd’s Church History, vol. 11. p. 394.) 

But little more is recorded than these leading events of 
his life. When summoned to the Three Conferences, he 
was a “ prisoner for the Catholique faith.” One of his great 
successes was the temporary conversion of Chillingworth, 
which is ascribed to him by Dodd,—or rather Hugh Tootle, 
writing under that name—(Church History, vol. 11. p. 101. 
Cf. Des Maizeaux’ Life of Chillingworth, p.6; and Ant. 


Wood, sub nom.). Not only did he conduct the controversy 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [x1x | 


between himself and Drs. White and Laud, and the nearly 
contemporaneous dispute at the house of Sir H. Lynde, but 
in 1623 we find him in a controversy with Henry Rogers, 
who wrote “ An Answer to Mr. Fisher the Jesuit his Five 
Propositions concerning Luther,’ &c. 1623. To this Fisher 
replied, and Rogers subsequently answered, in the “ Protest- 
ant Church existent,” &c. 1638. In 1625 (cf. Prynne’s 
Hidden Workes of Darkness, &c. p. 71) “ Piercy’s” name 
occurs first in the writ of pardon, dated 4 May, and issued 
in favour of twenty Priests and Jesuits, a few days after 
King Charles’s marriage with Henrietta Maria. It was 
made a subject of accusation against Archbishop Laud on 
his trial, that he had connived at Fisher’s release from 
imprisonment; and that on more than one occasion he had 
discountenanced his arrest. 

A tedious and circumstantial account of this matter is 
inserted by Prynne, with his usual prolixity and malignity, 
in Canterburie’s Doome, pp. 451—453. It certainly does 
appear, and much to the Archbishop’s credit, that in March, 
1634-5, he was instrumental in getting, at least, a commuta- 
tion of Fisher’s punishment. Under the existing laws against 
seminary priests, it was felony for one of the Jesuits to be 
found in England. Fisher had been arrested by Cook and 
Gray, the messengers, and “ after his examination before the 
Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Secretary Cooke 
went to the King, to know his pleasure what should be done 
with him; who returning to the Board, the Archbishop de- 
livered the King’s pleasure, to this effect :—‘ Master Fisher, 
kneel down upon your knees, every morning and every even- 
ing, and pray for the King for granting you your life; and, 
to be short, Master Fisher, his Majesty’s pleasure is, that you 
shall be forthwith banished this kingdom, and all other his 

b2 


[xx] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


Majesty’s dominions, and you shall remain prisoner in the 
Gate House, until you put in good security before the King’s 
attorney, Sir John Banks, never to return again.? Where- 
unto Fisher replied: If he had a hundred lives, he would 
come hither again, or elsewhere, if his superior so com- 
manded him ; and utterly refused to put in any security.” 
(Canterburie’s Doome, p.452.) Prynne goes on to say that 
in consequence he was committed to the Gate House, but 
was found at liberty in Holborn four months after. This 
must have been in consequence of Secretary Windebanke’s 
general policy of releasing all the Roman Catholic prisoners : 
a catalogue of the Priests discharged by him, to the number 
of seventy-seven, is produced by Prynne in the “ Hidden 
Workes of Darkness,” &c. p. 124, in which we find: 
“ 20,.—John Piers, alias Fisher, with two sureties in 500/. to 
appear upon twenty days’ warning: bond dat. 12 August, 
1635.” Fisher is also alluded to in a letter from Phillips the 
Queen’s Confessor, addressed to M. Mountague in France: 
“You may expect some company with you ere long. Crofts, 
Suckling, Piercy, Jermaine are gone.” (Hidden Workes, &c. 
p- 215.) His works, as catalogued in the Bibliotheca Script. 
Soc. Jesu, and in Dodd’s Church History, are— 
1. A Treatise of Faith. London, 1600. With Notes, 
St. Omer’s, 1614. 
2. A Defence of his Treatise of Faith, against Wotton 
and White. St. Omer’s, 1612. 
3. A Challenge to Protestants, &c. St. Omer’s, 1612. 
4, An Answer to Nine Points of Controversy, &c., with 
the Censure of Mr. White’s Reply. 4to. 1625. 
It has already been shown how little of this last work is 
Fisher’s. 


' H. More (vy. supra) adds to this dialogue. 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxi] 


It remains to give some more particular account of Arch- 
bishop Laud’s work, now reprinted. Of the first edition, 
or rather original sketch, appended to Dr. White’s work, 
sufficient notice has been taken. 

The second edition, or in point of fact the first edition of 
the complete work itself, was published in 1639, in small 
folio; its title-page has been fac-similed for the present 
volume; and follows the Editor’s preface. It was the only 
edition published during the author’s life, 

The third edition is “A Relation of the Conference 
between William Laud, late Lord Arch-Bishop of Can- 
terbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite, By the Command of 
King James, of ever-blessed Memory. With an Answer 
to such Exceptions as A.C. takes against it. The Third 
Edition Revised : with a Table annexed. London: Printed by 
J.C. for Tho. Bassett, T. Dring, and J. Leigh, at the George, 
the White-Lion, and the Bell in Fleet-street. MDCLXXII.”’ 

The title-page of the fourth edition, printed in red and 
black, is “A Relation of the Conference between William 
Laud, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher 
the Jesuit, by the Command of King James of ever Blessed 
Memory. With an Answer to such Exceptions as A.C. 
takes against it. The Fourth Edition revised: with a Table 
annexed. Imprimatur. C. Alston, R. P. D. Hen. Episc. 
Lond. a Sacris Domesticis. Jan. 25. 168%. London, Printed 
by Ralph Holt for Thomas Bassett, Thomas Dring in Fleet 
Street, and John Leigh, MDCLXXXxvI.” 

A reprint, making the fifth edition, was published “ Oxford, 
at the University Press. 1839.” The present edition, there- 
fore, is the sixth. 

The text of the posthumous editions of 1673 and 1686 


(the latter being a reprint, with very trifling variations of the 


[xxi] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


former) differs in very many, and sometimes important, par- 
ticulars from that of 1639. In most, but notin all, cases the 
text of the later editions is an improvement on the original : 
but the present Editor did not feel himself at liberty to dis- 
card the text as left by the author in 1639: especially as the 
third edition claims to be, and is, “ Revised: with a Table 
annexed ;” and it is by no means clear how far all the addi- 
tions to, or variations from, the edition of 1639 received the 
author’s sanction. That some of the corrections,—for ex- 
ample, the passage at p.284,—contain Archbishop Laud’s 
own second, and matured, thoughts is tolerably plain: and 
the reason of such additions it is not difficult to trace, as 
they-correct errors in fact, of that sort which an author 
alone was likely to detect: but on the other hand, certain 
variations—such as corrections in style—seem rather to 
betray the editor than the author. While therefore it has 
been thought preferable on the whole to retain the author’s 
own text as the basis of the present edition, all the changes 
introduced in the subsequent editions will be found noted in 
the margin. In some instances, however, the text of 1673, 
&c. has been adopted, but in these cases the original reading 
is also retained in the margin or in notes. 

It may be probably conjectured that the edition of 1673 
was prepared for the press by the same Dr. Richard Baily, 
Archbishop Laud’s Chaplain, in whose name the first edition 
of the “ Relation of the Conference” appeared. Dr. Baily had 
married a niece of Laud’s, Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. William 
Robinson, the Archbishop’s half-brother ; and it appears by 
a clause in the Archbishop’s will, to which he was appointed 
executor, that he stood high in his confidence, and may be 
regarded as the person to whom all corrections of his works 


were committed. It is:— 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxiii | 


“ Item.—I doe lay upon Dr. Baylye, above named, the care 
of all my papers and paper-bookes, if they can scape the 
violence of the time. .. . All which papers and paper-bookes 
I give unto him alsoe. But with this charge, that hee burne 
all which hee thinkes not fitt to use himself, that my weak- 
nes whatever it bee, bee not any man’s scorne; and my 
dilligence I am sure cannott bee. As for my Sermons, I 
leave them likewise to Dr. Baylye’s care; all that are faire 
written, and have this mark (7) before them, I have revised ; 
and yet I will not have any of them printed, unles they be 
perused either by Dr. Juxon, Lord Bishop of London, or 
Dr. Wrenn, Lord Bishop of Ely, or Dr. Steward, Dean of 
St. Paules, my reverend friends, nor yet then unles the times 
will beare them. ... And I do heartily pray my Executor to 
take care that my booke written against Mr. Fisher the 
Jesuite, may be translated into Lattin and sent abroad, that 
the Christian world may see and judge of my religion. And 
I give unto him that translates it, for his paines, 1001.’ ™ 

When it is said that Dr. Baily was the probable editor of 
the edition of 1673, it is meant that it was probably revised 


for the press by him; for he died, Dean of Salisbury and 


m A copy of Laud’s will is given in Wharton’s Remains, vol. i. p. 454, but it 
is neither complete nor accurate. The above extract, which is not given by 
Wharton, has been transcribed from the original will in Doctors’ Commons. 
The clause respecting the Sermons will enable us to account for what, when 
the previous volume (the Sermons) of this collected edition of Laud’s works was 
published, seemed difficult to understand, viz.: why only seven out of all those 
which he was known to have preached, were printed in the collected edition 
of 1651; and why the seventh Sermon, preached in 1631, was published in 
1645, shortly after the Archbishop’s death. Doubtless both publications are 
due to Dr. Baily’s estimate of the responsibility laid on him by the Archbishop’s 
will; though it is not easy to understand the especial suitableness of the 
years 1645 (the date of publication of the Seventh Sermon) and 1651 (the date 
of the collected volume)—“ nor yet then unless the times will bear them ”—to 
such works as Laud’s Sermons. 


[xxiv] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


President of 8. John’s College, in 1667. The only addition 
which this edition of 1673 professes to make to the Author’s 
own edition, is the “ Table annexed.” But it is certain that, 
though uncommon, copies of the edition of 1639 occur with 
“A Table of the principall Contents,” word for word the 
same as in the posthumous editions. One such copy is in 
the present Editor’s possession. The subject has a slight 
interest ; because a presentation copy" of the edition of 1639, 
from Laud to Lord Derby, and now in the possession of the 
Rey. W. Maskell, in the original binding, has no such 
Index; and it has been said that this Index, or Table, be- 
trays a bias somewhat inconsistent with the substance of 
the work. But from a comparison of the two “Tables,” it 
is plain that they are composed from different founts of 
type; and consequently that the Index to the edition of 
1639, is not a mere adaptation to its own paging of that of 
the edition of 1673; though it seems doubtful whether it is 
contemporaneous with the authentic publication of the work 
in Laud’s life-time. 

The present Editor must be considered responsible for the 
headings of the pages, in which he has tried to give accu- 
rately the sense of the author; though, from the great 
difficulty of compressing an argument or statement into a 
few words, he fears that if he has not sometimes missed the 


sense, he has occasionally been led into forced and even 


ο» ἽΚΜΕΥ͂ δα 
" Fac-simile of Laud’s autograph, on 
the title-page of this copy. W (unt 


=< 


ungrammatical expressions. 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxv] 


The other additions of the present Editor are marked 
with brackets ; and, as in the preceding volume, the citations 
from the Fathers have been verified and given in full. 

Tt will be found that the present edition incorporates the 
whole of Fisher’s own Relation of the First Conference, 
as well as of the Third, to which Laud’s Relation is a reply; 
a work, as has already been observed, of exceeding rarity. 
The present edition reprints, for the first time from this 
source, the whole of the long notes which A.C. added to 
his printed Relation, as a controversial reply to Laud’s short 
and original account of the Conference published under 
Dr. Baily’s name. These notes are not, like Fisher’s original 
manuscript Relation, incorporated in the Archbishop’s account 
of the Conference, and they are never cited by Laud except 
in a fragmentary form, always sparingly, and sometimes with 
slight but unintentional inaccuracy. In the present edition, 
as in A.C.’s printed Relation, they follow upon his text, and, 
together with those other portions of that work which Laud 
omitted, are enclosed in [ ]. 

The initials used in this work are, 

%. Bishop Laud. 

¥. Fisher the Jesuit. 

Ὁ. W. Dr. Francis White. 

L. K. Lord Keeper Williams, Bishop of Lincoln. 

A.C. The initials adopted by Fisher in his “True 
Relations of Sundry Conferences,’ &c. and especially in 
his answer to Bishop Laud’s first printed account of his 


Conference. 


Upon the value and importance of the present celebrated 
work, it were superfluous in this place to enlarge. But in 


no edition of it should it remain unnoticed, that so high was 


[xxvi] EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


the value which King Charles set upon it, that he epitomized 
it with his own hand, (Life, prefixed to King Charles’ Works, 
Perrinchief, p. 115; Sir P. Warwick’s Memoirs, &c. p. 82 ;) 
and that he advised his daughter Elizabeth to read, and at 
the same time gave her with his own hands, Bishop An- 
drewes’ Sermons, Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, and Laud 
against Fisher. (Thom. Herbert’s Life, apud Ant. Wood; 
Dugdale’s Short View of the Late Troubles, ἕο. p. 382 ; 
Harris’s Lives, vol. ii. p. 74, note.) Of the spirit in which it 
was composed, it is a sufficient defence to remember, that it 
was actually made a charge against the Archbishop on his 
trial, (Canterburie’s Doome, p. 457,) that in his Epistle Dedi- 
catory to the King, (vide infra, p. x.) he averred that “he had 
not given him [Fisher] or his so much as coarse language.” 
And of its matter, it may be enough to cite the Author’s own 
account of his controversial principles. ‘“ Secondly, my book 
against Fisher hath been charged against me; where the 
argument must lie thus: I have endeavoured to advance 
Popery, because I have written against it. And with what 
strength I have written, I leave to posterity to judge, when 
the envy which now overloads me shall be buried with me. 
This I will say with S. Gregory Nazianzen, (whose success at 
Constantinople was not much unlike mine here, save that his 
life was not sought,) ‘I never laboured for peace to the wrong 
and detriment of Christian verity,’ (Orat. 32,) nor I hope ever 
shall. [And let the Church of England look to it; for in 
great humility I crave to write this (though there was no 
time to speak it): That the Church of England must leave 
the way it is now going, and come back to that way of 
defence which I have followed in my book, or she shall 
never be able to justify her separation from the Church of 
Rome.]” (Troubles and Trial, &c. p. 418.) 


EDITOR’S PREFACE. [xxvu | 


Finally, What Laud’s own dying judgment of his endea- 
vours in this Conference was, may be estimated by the 
clause in his will, quoted above: but it seems scarcely 
becoming to do other than to prefix, by way of motto to it, 
the admission of one of the Archbishop’s bitterest enemies, 


Sir Edward Deering, who observed that “ his own book 


against the Jesuit will be his lasting epitaph.” 


Life of Land, p. 504.) 


Hoxton, 
October 23, 1849. 


(Heylyn’s 


WILLIAM SCOTT. 


The references have been made to the following editions. 


When a reference occurs but once, the edition in such case 


is specified with the quotation itself. 


/Eneas Sylvius, apud Fascic. Rerum, 
WC., 4. Ve 

Albertus Magnus, Ratisbon., Op., fol. 
Basil. 1506. 

Alliaco, Pet. de, Card. Cameracens. 
inter Opera Jo. Gerson., q. v. 

Almain, Jacob., in Sentent. fol. Lugd. 
1527. 





—— Opuscula, fol. 5. a. Par. 
[1517 ἢ 

Alphonsus a Castro, Op., fol. Paris. 
ΠΟ ΙΣ 

Aquinas, S. Thom., Op., fol. Paris. 
1615. 





————— Opuscula, ed. Mo- 

relles, Antv. 1612. 

Aristoteles, Op., ed. Bekker. 8vo. 
Oxon. 1837. 

Assemanni, Cod. Liturgic. Eccl. Univ. 
4to. Rome, 1749-67. 

Athanasius, 8., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. 
Paris. 1698. 

Augustinus, ὅ., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. 
Paris. 1679—1700. 

Azorius, Lorcitan. Institut. Moral. 
fol. Paris. 1616. et Colon. 1613. 

Bandinus, de Trinitate, &c. Lovan. 
1551. 

Baronius, Annales, fol. Rome, 1607. 

Basilius, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. 
Paris. 1721-30. 

Becanus, Mart., Op., fol. Paris. 1633. 

———— Opuscula, fol. Mogunt. 1610. 

Bellarminus, Card., Op., fol. Col. Agrip. 
1619. 


Bernardus, 8., Op., fol. Par. 1551. 

Bibliotheca Patrum, Max. fol. Lugd. 
1677. 

Biel, Gabr., in Canon. Miss. fol. Cleyn, 
Lugdun. 1514. 

-- in Sentent. Cleyn. Lugd. 

1519. 

—— Suppl. in IV. Sentent. fol. 
Par. 1521. 

Boétius, de Consol. Philos. Basil. 1570. 

Bonaventura, Card., Op., fol. Mogunt. 
1609. 

Bossuet, Guvres de, 8vo. Versailles, 
1817. 

Bullarium Magn. &e. fol. Luxemburg. 
1727, &e. 

Cajetan., Card., Op., fol. Lugd. 1662. 

Calvinus, Op., fol. Amst. 1667. 

Calvisius, Chron. fol. Francof. 1685. 

Canus Melchior, de Locis Theolog. 
8vo. Lovan. 1569. 

Cappellus de Appell. Eecl. African. 
8vo. Paris. 1622. 

Caranza, Barthol., Summa Concili- 
orum, 12mo. Duaci, 1679. 

Cassander, Op., fol. Paris. 1616. 

Catharinus, Ambros. in Epist. D. 
Pauli, fol. Paris. 1566. 

Cave, Historia Literaria, fol. Oxon. 
1740—43. 

Chemnitz, Examen Cone. Trident. 
fol. Genev. 1614. 

Cicero, Op., Ernesti, Londin. 1819. 

Codex Veteris Eccles., apud Justelli 
Biblioth. Canon. ed. fol. Paris. 1661. 








[xxviii] EDITOR’S 

Conciliorum Collectio, Binnii, fol. 
Paris. 1636. 

Labbe et Cos- 
sart. fol. Paris. 1671-72. 

, Summa a Barthol. Ca- 

ranza, Duaci, 1679. 

Corpus Juris Civilis, ed. Van Leeu- 
wen. fol. Amstel. 1663. ᾿ 

Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Pithei, 
fol. Paris. 1687. 

Critici Sacri, &c. fol. Londin. 1660. 

Cyprianus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. 
Paris. 1726. 

ee Op, fol. Paris. J 616- 

Cyrillus Alexandr. S., Op., ed. Aubert, 
fol. Paris. 1638. : 

Cyrillus Hierosolym., 8.,Op., fol. Paris. 
1640. 

Damascenus, ὅ. Joan., Op., Lequien, 
fol. Paris. 1712. 

De Dominis Ant. Archiep. Spalat. 
A Manifestation of the Motives, ὅσ. 
London, 1616. 





id. (Latin) Paris. 





1623. 

De Marea, de Concordia Sacerdotii et 
Imperii, fol. Paris. 1669. 

Decretalia (Greg. IX.) cum Gloss., 
fol. ed. Taurini, 1621. 

Dionysius Carthusianus, (Dionys. a 
Rickel de Leewis,) Enarrationes in 
LV. Evang. fol. ed. Paris. 1542. 

Durandus, Ep. Mimatens., in Senten- 
tias, fol. Paris. 1508. 

Ecelesiast. Hist. Scriptores, ed. Read- 
ing., fol. Cantabrig. 1720. 

Echard’s Hist. of England, fol. Lon- 
don, 1707. 

Epiphanius, S., Op., ed. Petav. fol. 
Paris. 1622. 

Erasmus, Adag. Chiliad. fol. Colon. 
1612. 

Espenceeus, Op., fol. Paris. 1619. 

Eucher, (Emond,) Op., 4to, Col. 1701. 

Euchologion Greecor. Goar. fol. Paris. 
1647. 

Eusebius Czesariensis, (Pamphili) Hist. 
Eccles. apud Hist. Eccles. Scrip- 
tores, q. V. 

Fasciculus Rerum, &c. per Gratium, 
fol. Colon. 1535. 

Ferus, Enarr. in Act. fol. Colon. 1567. 

Field, Of the Church, fol. Oxford, 
1635. 

Gandavensis, Henr. (Goethals) Sum- 
ma, &e. fol. Ferrariz, 1646. 

Gerhardus, Op., 4to. Tubinge, 1776. 

Gerson., Joh., Op., ed. Dupin. Par. 
1706. 

Goldastus, Monarchia 8. Romani Im- 
perii, fol. Francof. 1614. 

Gorranus in Evangel. Comment. fol. 
Antverp. 1617. 


PREFACE. 


Gregorius Magnus, S., Op., ed. Bene- 
dict. fol. Par. 1705. 

______—— Nazianzenus, S., Op., ed. 
Benedict. fol. Paris. 1778—1840. 

ed. Billii, fol. 





Paris. 1630. 
Thaumaturg., S., ed. Paris. 





de Valentia, Comment. 
Theolog. in Summ. 8. Thom, Aquin. 
in Op., fol. Paris. 1609. 

Hieronymus, 8., Op., ed. Benedict. 
Paris. fol. 1693—1706. 

Hilarius Pictay., 5., Op., ed. Benedict. 
fol. Paris. 1693. 

Holkot in Sentent. fol. Lugd. 1497. 

Hooker, Richard, Works, ed. Keble, 
8vo. Oxford, 1836. 

Ignatius, S. apud Patres Apostol., q. v. 

Irenseus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. 
Paris, 1710. 

ed. Grabe. fol. 
Oxon, 1702. 

Isidor. Hispalens. S., Op., ed. Loren- 
zanee, 4to. Rome, 1802. 

Isidor. Pelusiot., S., Op., fol. Paris. 
1638. 

Jansenius,Concord. Evang. fol. Lovan. 
1571. 

Junius, Op., fol. Genev. 1613. 

Justin Martyr, 5., Op., ed. Thirlby, 
Londin. 1722. 

Lactantius, Op., ed. Lebrun, Paris. 
1748. 

Leo Magnus, S., Op., ed. Ballerini, fol. 
Venet. 1753. 

Llamas, Summ. Ecclesiast. Mogunt. 
1605. 

Lombard, P., Magist. Sentent., Op., 
8yo. Paris. 1575. 

Lucanus de Bell. Phars. Variorum, 
Londin. 1818. 

Maldonatus, Comment. fol. Mussi- 
ponti, 1596. 

Martyr, Pet., Loc. Comm. Genev. 
1624. 

Maurus, Rabanus, Op., fol. Colon. 1626. 

Minutius Felix, Octavius, 8vo. Lugd. 
Bat. 1672. 

Mirandula, Joann. Pic., Op., fol. Basil. 
1496. 
Nauclerus, 
1564. 
Novatianus de Trinitate, ad caleem 

Op. Tertulliani, q. v. 

Ockam, ef. Goldastus. 

Optatus Milevitanus, 5., de Schism. 
Donatist. ed. Dupin. fol. Paris. 
1700. 

Origenes, Op., ed. Ben. fol. Par. " 
1733-59. 

Op., Erasm. Interpret. ed. 
Frobenii, Basil. 1545. 


Chronicon, fol. Colon. 


EDITOR’S PREFACE, 


Patres Apostolici, ed. Cotelerius, fol. 
Amst. 1724. 
Paul Sarpi, Hist. Cone. Trident. (vers. 
Lat.) fol. Aug. Trinobant. 1620. 
Paulinus, Nolan, 8., Op., fol. Paris. 
1685. 

Pighius, Albert., Hierarch. Eccles. fol. 
Colon. 1538. 

Platina de Vitis Pontificum, fol. Colon. 
1568. 

Plautus, Op., Ernesti, Lipsize, 1760. 

Prosper, S., Aquitan. Op., ed. Antelmn. 
fol. Paris. 1711. 

Ramus, Schol. Math. Basil. 1569. 

Rogers on the Articles, &c. London, 
1585 and 1639. 

Ruffinus, Expositio Symboli, 
8. Cyprianum, q. v. 

Sa Emmanuel, Lusitan. Aphorism. 
Colon. 1615. 

Salmeron, Comment. &c. fol. Colon. 
1614. 

Sanchez de Matrimonio, fol. Antwerp. 
1626. 

Scotus, Duns, Dector Subtil., Op., fol. 


apud 


Lugd. 1639. 
Seneca, Op., fol. Paris. 1607. 
Simaneas, de Cathol. Instit. fol. 


Rome, 1575. 

Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Sanct. fol. 
Paris. 1610. 

Socrates, Hist. Eccles. apud Hist. 
Eccles. Scriptor., q. v. 

Stapleton, Thom., Op., fol. 
1620. 

Stella, Enarr. in §. Lue. fol. Antyerp. 
1622. 


Paris. 


[xxix | 
Suarez, Op., fol. Colon. 1614. fol. 
Venet. 1747. 

Comment. ac Disput. in 
Summ. ὃ. Thom. Aquin. fol. 
Mogunt. 1619. 

Synesius, Cyren. Op., ed. Petay. ad 
caleem §. Cyril. Hierosol. fol. Paris. 
1640. 

Tena, Comment. fol. Londin. 1661. 
Tertullianus, Op., cum Novatiano de 
Trin. ed, Rigalt. fol. Paris. 1673. 
Theodoretus, Op., Sirmondi, fol. Par. 

1642. 

Theodoretus, Eccl. Hist. apud Hist. 
Kecles. Scriptores, q. v. 

Theophylactus, Comment. in Evang. 
fol. Par. 1635. 

---------- — Comment. in Epist. 
ed. Lindsell. Londin. 1636. 

Tollet, Cardinal. in S. Johann. fol. 
Lugd. 1615. 

Tostatus, Op., fol. Col. Agrip. 1613. 

Tractatus Juris Utriusque, &c. fol. 
Venet. 1584. 





Turrecremata, Summ. de _ LEccles. 
Lugd. 1496. 
Vasquez, Comment. in Summ. ὃ. 


Thom. Aquin. fol. Anty. 1621. 

Vincentius Lirinensis, 12mo. Colon. 
1585. 

Waldensis, Thomas, Doctrinal. Fidei, 
fol. Paris. 1582. 

Whitaker, Op., Aurel. Allobrog. et 
Geney. fol. 1610. 

Wittembergenses Theologi, &e. fol. 
Witebergee, 1584. 

Zanchius, Op., fol. ed. Crispini, 1619. 





ERRATA. 


In Fisher's Relation, &c. :— 
Page 27, line 1, for distinction of faith, read distinction of points of faith. 


30, — 30, for cannot be to [so] firm, read cannot be firm. 

132, — 19, for so rudely, read formerly. 

— - 24, for the first thing known, read the first thing foreknown. 
149, — 37, &c. for for contra id, read for if contra id. 


— — 39, 40, for insolent madness. What then? Is it, &., read insolent madness; 
what then is it, &c. 

— — 56, for to Rome, to, read to come to. 

240, — 6, for dojustify, read do not like. 


{The above faults occur with some others in Fisher’s own book: but they’are corrected in 
a Table of Errata which escaped the present Editor until far advanced in his own volume. } 


In Laud :— 
Page 10, notes, col. 2, line 23, for Bonifacium, read ad Bonifacium. 


12, in marg. line penult. 

— notes, col. 2, line ἜΝ for 1663, read 1673. 

16, do. do. 

91, notes, col. 2, line 12, for Hipponem—regium, read Hipponem-Regium. 


152, notes col. 1, line 9, for 1629, read 1529. 

240, at the end of the head-line, for period, place comma, 
288, notes, col. 2, line 13, for Stapletoni, read Hardingi. 
300, notes, col. 2, line 8, for de Vit., read de Vio. 

336, notes, col. 1, line 12, dele period after vi. 


CONTENTS. 


Laud’s Dedication of his Relation of the Conference to King ne 
Charles I. il 
APPENDIX. 
No. I. (Fisher) Preface of the Publisher, W. I. Χ Χα 
II. -- --- Occasion of the First Conference between 
Dr. White and Fisher Sc 
Ill. —— Relation of the First Conference between 
Dr. White and Fisher ΧΧΥῚ 
IV. —— Preface to Relation of the Third Confer- 
ence between Bp. Laud and Fisher . xx xix 
Laud’s Relation of the Conference between himself and 
Fisher, incorporating A.C. [Fisher’s] own Relation of the 
same Conference 1 
Index 431 


Index of Texts 


ως. 7 
rT 
“ ΡΥ Mr | 


4 ΝΗ ἢ ᾿ i . 
᾿ ant A 
‘Api Crater SY, 


ΠΩΣ i  Ὁ 
᾿ ον Oe 
κέ Ὁ ᾿ 


© 


= ae ἂν " Γ᾿ 

ἣ ᾿ 7 : ao! rio 
ἜΝ. * »" 7 9 ed 
ad a of 
τς ae ee : 


ry Die . a) ᾿" gs 





A 
RELATION 


The Conference 
BETWEENE 
WILLIAM LAWD, 
hen, = Bihop of S° Day ips; 
NOV, 

Lord Arch-Bifhop of CANTERBVRY: 
And Mr. Fither the ‘fefuite, by the Command of 


Kine JAM E'S of ever 
Bleffed Memorie. 


With an Anf{wer to fuch Exceptions as 
A. C. takes againft it. 





By the fayd Moft Reverend Father in Gop, 


Vl ital Vie 
Lord Arch-Bifhop of CANTERBURY. 












A the ἤξεας ER AA 

“6 No “any 
PAV) 2 OR) 

(GEN (ee LI BAS) 








E ON- DY ON, 
Printed by Richard Badger, Printer to the PRINCE 
ΓΞ ΠΙ͵Ι ΟΠΠΙΝ ES: 
MDCXX XIX. 








TO 


HIS MOST SACRED MAJESTY, 


CHARLES, 


BY THE GRACE OF GOD, 


KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER 
OF THE FAITH, &c. 


DREAD SOVEREIGN, 


Tus tract will need patronage, as great as may be had, 
that is yours. Yet, when I first printed part of it, I pre- 
sumed not to ask any, but thrust it out at the end of 
another’s labours, that it might seem, at least, to have the 
same patron, your royal Father of blessed memory, as the 
other work, on which this attended, had.* But now I humbly 
beg for it your Majesty’s patronage; and leave withal, 
that I may declare to your most excellent Majesty, the 
cause why this tract was then written: why it stayed so 
long before it looked upon the light: why it was not then 
thought fit to go alone, but rather be led abroad by the 
former work: why it comes now forth both with alteration 
and addition: and why this addition made not more haste 
to the press than it hath done. 


4 [Laud’s first account of his “Con- answere. Which is here given by 


ference with Fisher the Jesuit,” pub- 
lished under the name of his Chaplain, 
Dr. Baylie, appeared under the title, 
“ An Answere to Mr. Fisher’s Relation 
of a Third Conference betweene a cer- 
tain 33. (as he stiles him) and himselfe. 
The Conference was very private, till 
Mr. Fisher spread certaine Papers of it, 


which in many respects deserved an 


R. B. Chapleine to the %. that was 
imployed in the Conference. London, 
printed by Adam Islip, 1624.” It 
is appended to Dr. Francis White’s 
“Replie to Jesuit Fisher’s answere,” &c. 
(Vide infra, p. 1. note >.) White’s 
book is dedicated to King James, to 
whom he was Chaplain. | 


Gee 


1V 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


The cause why this discourse was written, was this: 
I was, at the time of these Conferences with Master Fisher, 
Bishop of S. David’s ; and not only directed, but commanded, 
by my blessed master, King James, to this Conference with 
him. He, when we met,’ began with a great protestation of 
seeking the truth only, and that for itself. And certainly, 
truth, especially in religion, is so to be sought, or not to be 
found. He that seeks it with a Roman bias, or any other,* 
will run counter when he comes near it, and not find it, 
though he come within kenning of it. And therefore I did 
most heartily wish, I could have found the Jesuit upon that 
fair way he protested to go. After the Conference ended, 
I went, whither my duty called me, to my diocese; not 
suspecting any thing should be made public, that was both 
commanded and acted in private. For W. I., the publisher 
of the Relation of the First Conference with D. White, the 
late reverend and learned Bishop of Ely, confesses plainly : 
“That Master Fisher was straitly charged upon his allegiance, 
from his Majesty that then was, not to set out, or publish 
what passed in some of these Conferences, till he gave 
licence, and until M. Fisher and they might meet, and 
agree, and confirm under their hands, what was said on 
both sides.”¢ He says farther, “That M. Fisher went to 
Ὁ. White’s house, to know what he would say about the 
Relation, which he had set out.”® So then, belike M. Fisher 
had set out the Relation of that Conference before he went 
ta D. White to speak about it. And this notwithstanding 
the King’s restraint upon him, upon his allegiance. Yet to 
D. White it is said he went, but to what other end than 
to put a scorn upon him, I cannot see. For he went to his 
house to know “what he would say about that Relation of 
the Conference, which he had set out before.’ In my 
absence from London, M. Fisher used me as well. For with 
the same care of his allegiance, and no more, “ He spread 


> May 24, 1622. 

© One of these biases, is an aversion 
from all such truth as fits not our ends. 
And a luce veritatis aversus, [et] ob 
hoc luci veritatis adversus (fit), &e.— 
S. Augustin. cont. Adversarium Legis 
et Prophet. lib. ii. [eap. 7. Op., tom. 
viii col. 593. 1.1 And it is an easy 
transition, for a man that is averse 


from, to become adverse to, the truth. 

“Τὴ his! Epistle to the reader. [The 
Preface of W.I., the publisher of these 
Relations,” is added in the appendix 
to this Dedication, No. 1. v. infra, pp. 
XX1—xxiii. } 

€ Tbid. ioe 

1 [the epistle . . . . Editt. 1678, and 
1686. } 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


abroad papers of this Conference, full enough of partiality 
to his cause, and more full of calumny against me.” 
Hereupon I was in a manner forced to give M. Fisher’s 
Relation of the Conference, an answer, and to publish it. 
Though for some reasons, and those then approved by 
authority, it was thought fit I should set it out im my 
chaplain’s name, R. B., and not in my own. To which I 
readily submitted. 

There was a cause also, why at the first, the Discourse 
upon this Conference stayed so long, before it could endure 
to be pressed. For the Conference was in May, 1622.8 
And M. Fisher’s paper was scattered and made common, so 
common, that a copy was brought to me, being none of his 
special friends, before Michaelmas. And yet this Discourse 
was not printed till April, 1624. Now that you may know 
how this happened, I shall say for myself, It was not my 
idleness, nor my unwillingness to right both myself and the 
cause, against the Jesuit, and the paper which he had spread, 
that occasioned this delay. For I had then most honourable 
witnesses, and have some yet living, that this Discourse, 


f These words were in my former 
epistle, [7.e. in the short Epistle to 
the Reader, prefixed to Laud’s first 
account of the Conference, published 
under the name of R. B.] and A. C. 
checks at them, in defence of the 
Jesuit, and says: “That the Jesuit did 
not at all, so much as in speech, and 
much less in papers, publish this or 
either of the other two Conferences 
[which he had] with D. White, 
until he was forced unto it by false 
reports, given out [about them] to 
his private disgrace and the pre- 
judice of the Catholic cause. Nor 
then did he spread papers abroad, but 
only delivered a very few copies to 
special friends, and this not with 
intent to calumniate the Bishop, &c.” 
—A. C. in his preface before his 
“ Relation of this Conference[ between 
a certain 33. and M. Fisher, defended 
against the said 8.5 Chaplain.” 
A.C. p.37. This preface to the Rela- 
tion, is added in the appendix to this 
Dedication, No. 1V. v.infra, p. xxxix. ] 
Truly, I knew of no reports then given 
out to the prejudice of the Jesuit’s 
either person orcause. I was in a cor- 
ner of the kingdom, where [ heard little. 
But howsoever, here is a most plain 


confession by A. C. of that which he 
struggles to deny. He says, “ He did 
not spread papers.” What then? 
What? why “ he did but deliver 
copies.” Why, but doth not he that 
delivers copies, for instance, of a 
libel, spread it? Yea, “but he de- 
livered but a very few copies.’—[ibid. 
Ρ. 38.] Be it so; Ido not say how 
many he spread. He confesses the 
Jesuit delivered some, though very 
few; and he that delivers any, spreads 
it abroad. For what can he tell, 
when the copies are once out of his 
power, how many may copy them out, 
and spread them farther? Yea, ‘but 
he delivered them to special friends.” 
—|ibid. p. 38.] Be it se too: the 
more special friends they were to him, 
the less indifferent would they be to 
me, perhaps my more special enemies. 
Yea, but all this was ‘ without an in- 
tent to calumniate me.”—[ibid. p. 38.] 
Well, be that so too. But if I be 
calumniated thereby, his intention 
will not help it. And whether the 
copies, which he delivered, have not 
in them calumny against me, I leave 
to the indifferent reader of this Dis- 
course to judge. 
& [Vide supra, note °.] 


vl 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


such as it was when A. C. nibbled at it, was finished long 
before I could persuade myself to let it come into public view. 
And this was caused partly by my own backwardness to deal 
with these men, whom I have ever observed to be great 
pretenders for truth and unity, but yet such as will admit 
neither, unless they and their faction may prevail in all; as 
if no reformation had been necessary. And partly because 
there were about the same time, three Conferences held 
with Fisher. Of these this was the third; and could not 
therefore conveniently come abroad into the world, till the 
two former were ready to lead the way, which till that time 
they were not. 

And this is in part the reason also, why this tract crept 
into the end of a larger work. For since that work con- 
tained in a manner the substance of all that passed in the 
two former Conferences, and that this third, in divers 
points, concurred with them and depended on them, I could 
not think it substantive enough to stand alone. But besides 
this affinity between the Conferences, I was willing to have 
it pass as silently as it might, at the end of another work, 
and so perhaps little to be looked after, because I could not 
hold it worthy, nor can I yet, of that great duty and service 
which I owe to my dear mother the Church of England. 

There is a cause also, why it looks now abroad again with 
alteration and addition. And it is fit I should give your 
Majesty an account of that too. This tract was first printed 
in the year 1624. And in the year 1626, another Jesuit, or 
the same, under the name of A.C., printed a Relation of 
this Conference," and therein took exceptions to some par- 
ticulars, and endeavoured to confute some things delivered 
therein by me. Now being in years, and unwilling to die 
in the Jesuit’s debt, I have in this Second Edition done as 
much for him, and somewhat more. For he did but skip up 
and down, and labour to pick a hole here and there, where 
he thought he might fasten; and where it was too hard for 


Ὁ [A. C's “ Relation of the Con- (ice. himself, A. C.) and Laud, and 
ference,” viz. the First Conference, be- which appeared in the same volume 
tween himself and White, is added in with his “ Relation of the First Con- 
the appendix tothisDedication,No.III. ference,” is incorporated in the body 
His “ Relation of the Conference,” viz. of the present edition. | 
the Third Conference, between Fisher 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


him, let it alone. But I have gone thorough with him; and 
I hope, given him a full confutation ; or at least such a bone 
to gnaw, as may shake his teeth, if he look not to it. And 
of my addition to this Discourse, this is the cause; but of 
my alteration of some things in it, this. A. C. his curiosity 
to winnow me, made me in a more curious manner fall to 
sifting of myself, and that which had formerly passed my pen. 
And though (I bless God for it,) I found no cause to alter 
any thing that belonged either to the substance or course 
of the Conference: yet somewhat I did find which needed 
better and clearer expression, and that I have altered, well 
knowing I must expect curious observers on all hands. 

Now, why this additional answer to the Relation of A. C. 
came no sooner forth, hath a cause too, and I shall truly 
represent it. A.C.’s Relation of the Conference was set 
out, 1626. I knew not of it in some years after; for it was 
printed among divers other things of like nature, either by 
M. Fisher himself, or his friend A.C. When I saw it, I 
read it over carefully, and found myself not a little wronged 
in it; but the Church of England, and indeed the cause 
of religion, much more. I was before this time, by your 
Majesty’s great grace and undeserved favour, made Dean of 
your Majesty’s Chapel Royal, and a Councillor of State; 
and hereby, as the occasions of those times were, made too 
much a stranger to my books. Yet for all my busy employ- 
ments, it was still in my thoughts to give A. C. an answer. 
But then I fell into a most dangerous fever; and though it 
pleased God, beyond all hope, to restore me to health, yet 
long I was before I recovered such strength, as might 
enable me to undertake such a service.' And since that 
time, how I have been detained, and in a manner forced 
upon other many, various, and great occasions, your Majesty 
knows best. And how of late I have been used by the 
scandalous and scurrilous pens of some bitter men, (whom 


' [Laud was sworn in Dean of the 
Chapel Royal, Octob. 16, 1626, and 
Privy Councillor, April 29, 1627. 
The illness to which Laud alludes, is 
mentioned in his Diary, 1629. “Aug. 
14. I fell sick upon the way towards 
the Court, at Woodstock ; I took up 
my lodging at my ancient friend’s 


house, Mr. Francis Windebank. There 
I lay in a most grievous burning 
fever, till Monday, Sept. 7, on which 
day I had my last fit. I was brought 
so low, that I was not able to return 
towards my own house at London, till 
Tuesday, Octob. 29.” ] 


vil 


vill 


Ps.1. 19,20. 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


I heartily beseech God to forgive,) the world knows ; little 
leisure and less encouragement given me to answer a Jesuit, 
or set upon other services, while 1 am under the prophet’s 
affliction; between the “ mouth that speaks wickedness, 
and the tongue that sets forth deceit, and slander me as 
thick, as if I were not their own mother’s son.’”’* In the midst 
of these libellous outcries against me, some divines of great 
note and worth in the Church, came to me one by one, and 
no one knowing of the other’s coming, (as to me they pro- 
tested,) and persuaded with me to reprint this Conference 
in my own name. This they thought would vindicate my 
reputation, were it generally known to be mine. I confess, 
I looked round about these men and their motion; and at 
last, my thoughts working much upon themselves, I began 
to persuade myself that I had been too long diverted from 
this necessary work ; and that perhaps there might be 
in voce hominum, tuba Dei, “in the still voice of men, the 
loud trumpet of God,” which sounds many ways, sometimes 
to the ears, and sometimes to the hearts of men, and by 
means which they think not of. And as S. Augustine 
speaks, “ A word of God there is, quod nunquam tacet, sed 
non semper auditur, ‘ which though it be never silent, yet is 
not always heard.’”! That it is never silent, is His great 
mercy ; and that it is not always heard, is not the least of 
our misery. Upon this motion I took time to deliberate, 
and had scarce time for that, much less for the work; yet 
at last, to every of these men I gave this answer: That 
M. Fisher, or A. C. for him, had been busy with my former 
Discourse, and that I would never reprint that, unless I 
might gain time enough to answer that which A.C. had 
charged afresh both upon me and the cause. While my 
thoughts were thus at work, your Majesty fell upon the 
same thing, and was graciously pleased not to command, but 


k (This passage refers to the libels 
of Bastwick, Burton, and Prynne, who 
were censured in the Star-Chamber, 
June 14, 1637.] 

' (Sed quid mirum? Verbum Dei 
nunquam tacet ; sed nonsemper audi- 
tur.]—S. Augustin. Serm. {li. de con- 
cord. Matth. et Luc. olim Serm.] Lxiii. 
de diversis, cap. 10. [Op., tom. v. 
col. 291. C.] He speaks of Christ, 


disputing in the temple with the 
elders of the Jews. And they heard 
Christ, the essential Word of the 
Father, with admiration to astonish- 
ment, yet believed Him not. S. Luke 
ii. 47. And the Word then spake to 
them, by a means they thought not 
of, namely, per Filium Dei in puero, 
“by the Son of God Himself, under 
the veil of our human nature.” 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


to wish, me to reprint this Conference, and in mine own 
name; and this openly, at the Council-table, in Michaelmas 
Term, 1637." I did not hold it fit to deny, having in all the 
course of my service obeyed your Majesty’s honourable and 
just motions as commands; but craved leave to show, what 
little leisure I had to do it, and what inconveniences might 
attend upon it. When this did not serve to excuse me, I 
humbly submitted to that, which I hope was God’s motion 
in your Majesty’s. And having thus laid all that concerns 
this Discourse, before your gracious and most sacred 
Majesty, I most humbly present you with the book itself ; 
which as I heartily pray you to protect, so do I wholly sub- 
mit it to the Church of England, with my prayers for her 
prosperity, and my wishes that I were able to do her better 
service. 

I have thus acquainted your Majesty with all occasions 
which both formerly and now again have led this Tract into 
the light; in all which I am a faithful relater of all passages, 
but am not very well satisfied who is now my adversary. 
M. Fisher was at the Conference. Since that I find A.C. 
at the print: and whether these be two or but one Jesuit, 
I know not, since scarce one amongst them goes under one 
name. But for my own part, and the error is not great, if 
I mistake, I think they are one, and that one, M. Fisher. 
That which induces me to think so is, first, the great 
inwardness of A.C. with M. Fisher, which is so great as 
may well be thought to neighbour upon identity. Secondly, 
the style of A.C. is so like M. Fisher’s that I doubt it was 


but one and the same hand that moved the pen. Thirdly, A.C. A.C. p. 67. 


says expressly, “That the Jesuit himself made the Relation 


of the first Conference with 


m [It seems not improbable, that 
King Charles might have made this 
request on the occasion which is thus 
alluded to by Laud in his Diary: 
“1637. Octob. 22, Sunday.—A great 
noise about the perverting of the Lady 
Newport. Speech of it at the Council. 
My free speech there to the King, 
concerning the increase of the Roman 
party, the freedom at Durham House, 
the carriage of Mr. Walter Montague 
and Sir Toby Matthews. The Queen 
acquainted with all I said, that very 


D. White :” and in the title- 


night, and highly displeased with me, 
and so continues.” This Lady New- 
port (Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 337. 
was “ἃ kinswoman of the Duke of 
Buckingham ;” the Queen’s chapel 
was at Somerset (then called Durham) 
House; and Montague, a son of the 
Karl of Manchester, and Matthews, 
eldest son of the Archbishop of York, 
were two of the most distinguished 
persons who had conformed to the 
Church of Rome. | 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


page of the work that Relation as well as this is said to be 
made by A.C. and published by W. I. Therefore A.C. and 
the Jesuit are one and the same person, or else one of these 
places hath no truth in it. 

Now, if it be M. Fisher himself, under the name of A. C., 
then what needs these words: “ The Jesuit could be content 
to let pass the Chaplain’s censure as one of his ordinary 
persecutions for the Catholic faith, but A.C. thought it 
necessary for the common cause to defend the sincerity and 
truth of his relation, and the truth of some of the chief 
heads contained in it?" In which speech, give me leave to 
observe to your sacred Majesty how grievously you suffer 
him and his fellows to be persecuted for the Catholic faith, 
when your poor subject and servant cannot set out a true 
copy of a Conference held with the Jesuit, jussu superiorum, 
but by and by the man is “persecuted.” God forbid I 
should ever offer to persuade a persecution in any kind, or 
practise it in the least: for, to my remembrance, I have 
not given him or his so much as coarse language. But, on 
the other side, God forbid, too, that your Majesty should let 
both laws and discipline sleep for fear of the name of perse- 
cution; and, in the meantime, let M. Fisher and his fellows 
angle in all parts of your dominions for your subjects. If 
in your grace and goodness you will spare their persons, yet 
I humbly beseech you see to it, that they be not suffered 
to lay either their wheels, or bait their hooks, or cast their 
nets in every stream, lest that tentation grow both too 
general and too strong. I know they have many devices 
to work their ends; but if they will needs be fishing, let 
them use none but lawful nets.° Let us have no dissolving 


” Preface to the Relation of this Con- 
ference by A.C. [v. infra, p. xxxix. ] 

° And §. Augustine is very full 
against the use of mala retia, “un- 
lawful nets ;’ and saith the fishermen 
themselves have greatest cause to take 


scopi, vel inferioris ordinis ecclesiarum 
preepositi, intelligendi sunt: quia dic- 
tum est, Venite, et faciam vos pisca- 
tores hominum. Retibus enim bonis 
capi possunt pisces et boni et mali; 


heed of them. [Ut si intra retia Do- 
mini bona piscis malus esset, non 
tamen pisces Dominisui malis retibus 
irretiret; hoe est, ut si haberet in 
Ecclesia vitam malam, non tamen illic 
institueret doctrinam malam... Hee 
sunt mala retia, qua cavere debent 
preecipue piscatores: si tamen illa 
eyangelica similitudine piseatores epi- 


retibus autem malis capi non possunt 
pisces boni. Quoniam in doctrina 
bona et bonus potest esse qui audit et 
facit, et malus qui audit et non 
facit: in doctrina vero mala, et qui 
eam veram putat, quamvis ei non 
obtemperet, malus est ; et qui obtem- 
perat, pejor est.]—S. Augustin. lib. de 
Fide et Operibus, cap. xvii. [Op., 
tom. vi. col.183. F.] 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | ΧΙ 


of oaths of allegiance ; no deposing, no killing of kings; no 

blowing up of states to settle quod volumus, that which fain 

they would have in the Church; with many other nets as 
dangerous as these; for if their profession of religion were 

as good as they pretend it is, if they cannot compass it by 

good means I am sure they ought not to attempt it by bad; 

for, if they will “do evil that good may come thereof,” the Row. iii. 8. 
Apostle tells me “ their damnation is just.” 

Now, as I would humbly beseech your Majesty to keep 
a serious watch upon these fishermen, which pretend S. Peter, 
but fish not with his net ; so would I not have you neglect 
another sort of anglers in a shallower water ; for they have 
some ill nets too; and if they may spread them when and 
where they will, God knows what may become of it. ‘These 
have not so strong a back abroad as the Romanists have, 
but that is no argument to suffer them to increase. They 
may grow to equal strength with number; and factious 
people at home, of what sect or fond opinion soever they be, 
are not to be neglected, partly because they are so near— 
and it is ever a dangerous fire that begins in the bed-straw— 
and partly because all those domestic evils which threaten 
a rent in Church or State, are with far more safety prevented 
by wisdom than punished by justice. And would men con- 
sider it right, they are far more beholding to that man that 
keeps them from falling than to him that takes them up, 
though it be to set the arm or the leg that is broken in the 
fall. 

In this Discourse I have no aim to displease any, nor any 
hope to please all. If I can help on to truth in the Church, 
and the peace of the Church together, I shall be glad, be it 
in any measure. Nor shall I spare to speak necessary truth 
out of too much love of peace; nor thrust on unnecessary 
truth to the breach of that peace which once broken is not 
so easily soldered again. And if for necessary truth’s sake 
only, any man will be offended, nay take, nay snatch at that 
offence which is not given, I know no fence for that. It is 
truth, and I must tell it: it is the Gospel, and I must preach 1 Cor. ix. 
it. And far safer it is in this case to bear anger from men 
than a “woe” from God. And where the foundations of faith 
are shaken, be it by superstition or profaneness, he that puts 


ΧΙ 


Judg. v. 23. 


Judg. xvii, 
6. 


Ps. cxviii. 
12. 


tev. XXL. 
182} 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


not to his hand, as firmly as he can, to support them, is too 
wary, and hath more care of himself than of the cause of 
Christ ; and it is a wariness that brings more danger in the 
end than it shuns; for the Angel of the Lord issued out a 
curse against “the inhabitants of Meroz, because they came 
not to help the Lord, to help the Lord agaist the mighty.” 
I know it is a great ease to let every thing be as it will, and 
every man believe and do as he list ; but whether governors 
in State or Church do their duty therewhile, is easily seen, 
since this is an effect of “no king in Israel.” 

The Church of Christ upon earth may be compared to a 
hive of bees, and that can be nowhere so steadily placed in 
this world but it will be in some danger; and men that care 
neither for the hive nor the bees have yet a great mind to 
the honey; and having once tasted the sweet of the 
Church’s maintenance, swallow that for honey which one 
day will be more bitter than gall in their bowels. Now, the 
King and the Priest, more than any other, are bound to look 
to the integrity of the Church in doctrine and manners, and 
that in the first place; for that is by far the best honey in 
the hive. But, im the second place, they must be careful of 
the Church’s maintenance too, else the bees shall make 
honey for others, and have none left for their own necessary 
sustenance, and then all is lost; for we see it im daily and 
common use, that the honey is not taken from the bees, but 
they are destroyed first. Now, in this great and busy work, 
the King and the Priest must not fear to put their hands to 
the hive, though they be sure to be stung; and stung by 
the bees whose hive and house they preserve. It was King 
David’s case, God grant it be never yours. “ They came 
about me,” saith the Psalm, “lke bees.”? This was hard 
usage enough, yet some profit, some honey, might thus be 
gotten in the end. And that is the King’s case. But when 
it comes to the Priest, the case is altered ; they come about 
him like wasps, or like hornets rather—all sting and no 
honey there ;—and all this many times for no offence, nay, 
sometimes for service done them, would they see it. But 
you know Who said, “ Behold I come shortly, and My reward 


P Apum [vero] similitudine vesanum mira tamen [est] excandescentia.— 
ardorem notat: [quia etsi] in illis Calvin. in Psalm. exviii. [12. Op., 
fanimalibus] non tantum est roboris, tom. 111. p. 434. col. 2.] 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


is with Me, to give to every man according as his works shall 
06. And He Himself is so “ exceeding great a reward,” as 
that the manifold stings which are in the world, howsoever 
they smart here, are nothing when they are pressed out with 
that “ exceeding weight of glory’ which shall be revealed. 
Now, one thing more let me be bold to observe to your 
Majesty in particular, concerning your great charge, the 
Church of England. It is ina hard condition. She professes 
the ancient Catholic faith, and yet the Romanist condemns 
her of novelty in her doctrine ; she practices Church govern- 
ment as it hath been in use in all ages and all places where 
the Church of Christ hath taken any rooting, both in and 
ever since the Apostles’ times, and yet the Separatist con- 
demns her for Antichristianism in her discipline. The plain 
truth is, she is between these two factions, as between two 
millstones, and unless your Majesty look to it, to whose 
trust she is committed, she will be ground to powder, to an 
irreparable both dishonour and loss to this kingdom. And 
it is very remarkable that while both these press hard upon 
the Church of England, both of them cry out upon “ perse- 
cution ;” like froward children, which scratch and kick and 
bite, and yet cry out all the while, as if themselves were 
killed. Now, to the Romanist I shall say this :—The errors 
of the Church of Rome are grown now, many of them, very 
old; and when errors are grown by age and continuance to 
strength, they which speak for the truth, though it be far 
older, are ordinarily challenged for the bringers in of “new 
opinions.” And there is no greater absurdity stirring this 
day in Christendom than that the reformation of an old 
corrupted Church, will we nill we, must be taken for the 
building of anew. And were not this so, we should never 
be troubled with that idle and impertinent question of 
theirs: “ Where was your Church before Luther?” for it 
was just there, where theirs is now. One and the same 
Church still, no doubt of that; one in substance, but not 
one in condition of state and purity: their part of the same 
Church remaining in corruption, and our part of the same 
Church under reformation. The same Naaman, and he 


1 “There is no other difference be- Church miserably corrupted, and hap- 
tween us and Rome than betwixt a  pily purged,’ &¢.—Joseph Hall, Bishop 


Xill 


Gen. xv. 1. 


Rom. viii. 
18. 


ΧΙΝ 


Matt. xv. 
14. 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


a Syrian still; but leprous with them, and cleansed with 
us ;—the same man still. And for the Separatist, and him 
that lays his grounds for separation or change of discipline, 
though all he says, or can say, be in truth of divinity, and 
among learned men, little better than ridiculous, yet since 
these “fond opinions” have gained some ground among 
your people, to such among them as are wilfully set to “ follow 
their blind guides” through thick and thin, till “they fall 
into the ditch together,’ I shall say nothing. But for so 
many of them as mean well, and are only misled by artifice 
and cunning; concerning them I shall say thus much only :— 
They are bells of passing good metal, and tuneable enough 
of themselves and in their own disposition ; and a world of 
pity it is that they are rung so miserably out of tune as they 
are, by them which have gotten power in and over their 
consciences. And for this there is yet remedy enough; but 
how long there will be, I know not. 

Much talking there is—bragging, your Majesty may call 
it—on both sides; and when they are in their ruff they both 
exceed all moderation and truth too,—so far till both lips 


of Exeter, in his “ Apologetical Adver- 
tisement to the Reader,” [appended 
to “The Old Religion,” &c. the Third 
Edition,] p. 192. [194. ed. London, 
1630.] approved by Thomas Morton, 
Bishop then of Coventry and Lich- 
field, now of Duresme, in the Letters 
printed by ([Hall,] the Bishop of 
Exeter, in his Treatise called, “‘ The 
Reconciler,” [1. 6. “An Epistle pacifi- 
catory of the seeming differences of 
opinion concerning the trueness and 
visibility of the Roman Church :”] 
p. 68. [ed. London, 1629. Bishop 
Morton’s words are: “ And now re- 
membering the accordance your Lord- 
ship hath with others touching the 
argument of your book, I must needs 
reflect upon myself; who have long 
since defended the same point, in 
the defence of many others.”]—And 
Dr. Field, Of the Church, Appendix 
to the Third Part, chap. ii. [p. 880], 
where he cites Calvin to the same 
purpose ; (Instit. lib. iv. cap. 2. § 11.) 

. “I will first show that all our 
best and most renowned divines did 
ever acknowledge as much as I have 
written. 2. That the Roman Church 


is not the same now as it was when 
Luther began. And, 3. That we have 
not departed from the Church where- 
in our fathers lived and died, but 
only from the faction that was in it. 
Touching the first, M. Luther con- 
fesseth (lib. contr. Anabapt. ubi infra, 
p- 314. note §) that much good, nay, 
that all good, and the very marrow 
and kernel of faith, piety, and Chris- 
tian belief was, by the happy provi- 
dence of God, preserved even in the 
midst of all the confusions of the 
papacy. M. Calvin in like sort 
showeth that the true Church re- 
mained under the papacy: Cum 
Dominus foedus suum, saith he, in 
Gallia, Italia, Germania, Hispania et 
Anglia deposuerit ; ubi illee provincize 
Antichristi tyrannide oppresse sunt, 
quo tamen fcedus suum inviolabile 
maneret, Baptismum primo illic con- 
servavit, foederis testimonium, qui ejus 
ore consecratus, invita humana impie- 
tate, vim suam retinet. Deinde sua 
providentia effecit, ut alia quoque reli- 
quize exstarent, ne Ecclesia prorsus 
interiret ; &e.—Calvin. Op., tom. viii. 
p. 281. col. 1.] 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


and pens open for all the world like a purse without money ; 
nothing comes out of this, and that which is worth nothing 
out of them. And yet this nothing is made so great, as if 
the salvation of souls—that great work of the Redeemer of 
the world, the Son of God—could not be effected without it. 
And while the one faction cries up the Church above the 
Scripture, and the other the Scripture to the neglect and 
contempt of the Church, which the Scripture itself teaches 
men both to honour and obey ; they have so far endangered 
the belief of the one, and the authority of the other, as that 
neither hath its due from a great part of men; whereas, 
according to Christ’s institution, the Scripture, where it is 
plain, should guide the Church; and the Church, where 
there is doubt or difficulty, should expound the Scripture ; 
yet so, as neither the Scripture should be forced, nor the 
Church so bound up, as that upon just and farther evidence 
she may not revise that which in any case hath slipped by 
her. What success this great distemper, caused by the 
collision of two such factions, may have, I know not, I 
cannot prophesy. This I know, that the use which wise 
men should make of other men’s falls, is not to fall with 
them ; and the use which pious and religious men should 
make of these great flaws in Christianity, is not to join with 
them that make them, nor to help to dislocate those main 
bones in the body which being once put out of joint will not 
easily be set again. And though I cannot prophesy, yet 
I fear that atheism and irreligion gather strength while the 
truth is thus weakened by an unworthy way of contending 
for it. And while they thus contend, neither part consider 
that they are in a way to induce upon themselves and others 
that contrary extreme which they seem most both to fear 
and oppose. 

Besides, this I have ever observed, that many rigid pro- 
fessors have turned Roman Catholics, and in that turn have 
been more Jesuited than any other: and such Romanists as 
have changed from them have for the most part quite leaped 
over the mean, and been as rigid the other way as extremity 
itself. And this, if there be not both grace and wisdom to 
govern it, is a very natural motion: for a man is apt to think 
he can never run far enough from that which he once begins 


KV 


XVl1 


[Matt. v. 
16.] 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


to hate, and doth not consider therewhile, that where religion 
corrupted is the thing he hates, a fallacy may easily be put 
upon him; for he ought to hate the corruption which 
depraves religion, and to run from it; but from no part of 
religion itself, which he ought to love and reverence, ought 
he to depart. And this I have observed farther, that no one 
thing hath made conscientious men more wavering in their 
own minds, or more apt and easy to be drawn aside from the 
sincerity of religion professed in the Church of England, than 
the want of uniform and decent order in too many churches 
of the kingdom ; and the Romanists have been apt to say, 
The houses of God could not be suffered to he so nastily, 
as in some places they have done, were the true worship of 
God observed in them, or did the people think that such it 
were. It is true, the inward worship of the heart is the 
great service of God, and no service acceptable without it ; 
but the external worship of God in His Church is the great 
witness to the world, that our heart stands right in that 
service of God. Take this away, or bring it into contempt, 
and what light is there left “to shine before men, that they 
may see our devotion, and glorify our Father which is in 
heaven?” And to deal clearly with your Majesty, these 
thoughts are they, and no other, which have made me labour 
so much as 1 have done for decency and an orderly settle- 
ment of the external worship of God in the Church; for of 
that which is mward there can be no witness among men, 
nor no example for men. Now, no external action in the 
world can be uniform without some ceremonies ; and these 
in religion, the ancienter they be the better, so they may fit 
time and place. Too many overburden the service of God, 
and too few leave it naked. And scarce anything hath hurt 
religion more in these broken times than an opinion in too 
many men, that because Rome had thrust some unnecessary 
and many superstitious ceremonies upon the Church, there- 
fore the Reformation must have none at all; not considering 
therewhile, that ceremonies are the hedge that fence the 
substance of religion from all the indignities which profane- 
ness and sacrilege too commonly put upon it. And a great 
weakness it is, not to see the strength which ceremonies,— 
things weak enough in themselves, God knows,—add even 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


to religion itself; but a far greater to see it and yet to cry 
them down all and without choice, by which their most 
hated adversaries climbed up, and could not cry up them- 
selves and their cause as they do but by them. And divines, 
of all the rest, might learn and teach this wisdom if they 
would, since they see all other professions which help to bear 
down their ceremonies, keep up their own therewhile, and 
that to the highest. 

I have been too bold to detain your Majesty so long; but 
my grief to see Christendom bleeding in dissension, and, 
which is worse, triumphing in her own blood, and most 
angry with them that would study her peace, hath thus 
transported me ; for truly it cannot but grieve any man that 
hath bowels to see “ all men seeking,” but as 5. Paul foretold, 
“their own things, and not the things which are Jesus 
Christ’s:” sua, “their own” surely ; for the Gospel of Christ 
hath nothing to do with them: and to see religion so much, 
so zealously pretended and called upon, made but the stalk- 
ing-horse to shoot at other fowl upon which their aim is set; 
in the meantime, as if all were truth and holiness itself, no 
salvation must be possible, did it le at their mercy, but in 
the communion of the one, and in the conventicles of the 
other ; as if either of these now were, as the Donatists of old 
reputed themselves, the only men in whom Christ at His 
coming to judgment should find faith. No, saith 5. Augus- 
tine, and 501 say with him, Da veniam, non credimus, “ Par- 
don us, I pray, we cannot believe it.”* The Catholic Church 
of Christ is neither Rome, nor a conventicle. Out of that 
there is no salvation, I easily confess it. But out of Rome 
there is, and out of a conventicle too; salvation is not shut 
up into such a narrow conclave. In this ensuing Discourse, 
therefore, I have endeavoured to lay open those wider gates 
of the Catholic Church confined to no age, time, or place; 
nor knowing any bounds but that “ faith which was once ”’— 


τ (Sed nempe hoc est totum, quod solos, in quibus inveniat fidem, cum 
nobis persuadere conaris, solos reman- venerit, Filius hominis. Da veniam, 
sisse Rogatistas, qui catholici recte non credimus. |—S. Augustin. [ad Vin- 
appellandi sint, ex observatione pre- centium Rogatistam,] Epist. [xciii. 
ceptorum omnium divinorum atque  olim)] xlviii. [cap.7. Op., tom. ii. col. 
omnium sacramentorum; et vos esse 240. F.] 


VOL. II.—LAUD, d 


XVil 


Phils 21: 


Jude 3. 


xvi 


1 Pet. iii. 
15. 


[EPISTLE DEDICATORY. | 


and but once for all—“ delivered to the saints.’ And in 
my pursuit of this way, I have searched after, and delivered 
with a single heart, that truth which I profess. In the pub- 
lishing whereof I have obeyed your Majesty, discharged my 
duty to. my power to the Church of England, “ given account 
of the hope that is in me,” and so testified to the world that 
faith in which I have lived, and by God’s blessing and favour 
purpose to die; but, till death, shall most unfeignedly 
remain 


Your Majesty’s 
Most faithful Subject, 
And 
Most ale and obliged Servant, 


Wo CANE 


Re VB, 


RELATIONS 


GUE oy N_D oR. Y 


Conferences had between certaine Proteftant Dodtours, 
and a IesviTe called M. Fifber (then Pri- 
foner in London for the Catholique Fayth:) 
togeather with Defences of the fame. 


IN WHICH 
Is fhewed, that there hath alwayes beene, fince Chrift, a Vifible 
Church, and in it a Vifible Succeffion of Doétours & 
Paftours, teaching the unchanged Doétrine of Fayth, left by 
Chrift and his Apoftles, in all points neceffary to Saluation. 
PANG) lapel Uc 


Not Proteftants, but only Roman Catholiques haue had, and 
can fhew fuch a Vi/fible Church; and in it fuch aSucceffion 
of Paftours and Doétours, of whome men may fe- 
curely learne what points of Fayth are 

neceflary to Saluation. | 


Βα ee 


Dske 
ay 


I befeech you, Brethren, marke them which caufe diuifions and offences, con 
trary to the Dodtrine you haue learned, 5 auoyd them. Rom. τό. v. 17. 





Permiffu Superiorum. M. DeCrX XV I. 


| nee ἢ ΠΝ a 
sa ry co ἜΗΝ ἘΝ . 


a, 
ΕΝ 


εὐ ἴ ᾿ ati 
Ὑ anitenieg ei “ea ἜΠΊΟ 
T 4 ἣν a ie ἢ ih 3 So Pa 


A 4 © 


a eel νι νος Τὴ ent δὲ Ἢ 
ee eect 


τὰ A. Bag DPW e, 


a eae 3 
Poe HM ΠΤ τ νυ ἄν 





[APPENDIX. No. 1.] 


The Preface of the Publisher of these Relations. 


GENTLE READER,—I have thought good to present to thy view these 
Relations, together with the Defences of them; not doubting but if thou 
peruse and ponder them well, they will turn to thy benefit more ways 
than one. First, supposing thou never heardest anything of these Con- 
ferences but in general, or perhaps hast heard particulars falsely related 
by some who are partially affected, or misinformed; thou mayest by 
this my labour be certified of the truth, and hereby enabled to do a 
work of charity, in freeing others from ignorance and error, and con- 
tradicting such false rumours as thou mayest chance to understand to 
have been spread abroad, whether m speech or in print, about this 
matter. 

Secondly, If thou be not thyself already resolved aright in matter of 
faith necessary to salvation, thou mayest gain no small help towards 
a sound settling of thy mind; first, in the true knowledge and belief of 
that one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is mentioned in the 
Apostles’, and the Nicene, Creed; and by means of it, in every other 
article and point of that true Catholic faith, which S. Athanasius in his 
Creed signifieth to be so necessary to salvation, that “whosoever doth 
not hold it entire,” that is, in all points, “‘and inviolate,” that is, in the 
true, unchanged, and incorrupted sense, in which Christ and his Apostles 
left it, as a sacred depositum to be kept always in the Church, “ without 
doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”’ 

Thirdly, If thou be already rightly resolved, thou mayest receive 
confirmation in thy faith, and consolation, in considering how plainly 
it is proved that there is no other Church, nor consequently faith, 
which can, with any probable colour, be pretended to be truly Christian 
and Catholic, besides that which always was, and yet is, the Roman, or 
united with the Roman Church and faith. 

Lastly, Having once thy mind thus settled and confirmed in the right 
Roman Christian Catholic faith, and thereby freed from wavering in 
uncertainty and doubtfulness about any particular point of faith, thou 
needest not spend time in endless disputes about controversies of faith, 
nor be always reading and learning, as many curious people be now- 
a-days, and never coming to settled and well-grounded knowledge or 
belief of all points of faith; but mayest bestow thy time, as S. Peter 
counselleth those who be faithful Christians, when he saith, “ Employ- 2 Pet. i. 


XXll 


ΡΟ il. 


Ibid. 


[Appendix. No. I.| 


ing all care, minister ye in your faith, virtue,” by which you may live 
conformably to that faith ; ‘“‘and in virtue, knowledge,” by which you 
may discern practically good from ill; “and in knowledge, abstinence ” 
from all that is ill; “and in abstinence, patience,” in regard there will 
not want some pain to be suffered, while you labour to abstain from 
ill; ‘‘and in patience, piety,’ or devotion, out of which will spring spi- 
ritual comfort, enabling you to endure patiently all kind of pain; “and 
in piety, love of the fraternity,” or brotherhood and unity of the whole 
Church ; (not suffering yourselves, with a preposterous piety of private 
feeling devotion, to hate or separate from the common doctrine, sacri- 
fice, sacraments, service, rites, or ceremonies of the Catholic Church ;) 
“and in love of the fraternity, charity,” or love of God; which charity, 
if it be well grounded and rooted in your heart, it will doubtless move 
you “to labour,” as the same S. Peter further adviseth, “by good 
works,” and not by only faith or apprehension that your sins be for- 
given, or that you be just, or the children of God, or of the number of 
the elect, ‘to make sure your vocation and election; which doing you 
shall not,” as the same Apostle promiseth, “sin at any time; and 
there shall be ministered unto you abundantly, an entrance into the 
everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” 

Some may perhaps marvel why these Relations come out so late, it 
being now long since the adversaries have given out false reports, both 
in speeches and print. For answer hereof, it must be considered, that 
besides the ordinary difficulties which Catholics in England have, either 
to write for want of convenient place, time, commodity of books, and 
conferring with others, or to print, there have been some special extra- 
ordinary impediments which have hindered the same. As, namely, that 
M. Fisher was straitly charged, upon his allegiance, from his Majesty 
that then was living, not to set out or publish what passed in some of 
these Conferences, until he gave licence; which made both M. Fisher 
and his friends to forbear, hoping (as was promised by him who delivered 
his Majesty’s message), that D. White and others were not to publish 
anything, until they, meeting with M. Fisher, should treat and agree, 
and under their hands confirm what was said on both sides; which his 
Majesty perusing, would grant licence to publish. The which meeting 
M. Fisher expected a long while, and once went to D. White’s house, 
to know what he would say about the Relation which he had set out; 
but found him unwilling to make any such treaty and agreement, nor 
would himself set out in print or writing what he thought to be the true 
Relation, as knowing by likelihood that he could not set out the truth 
without disadvantage of his cause, or not without impairing, or at least 
not advancing, his own credit so much as he desired. 

If any marvel why in these Relations so little is said of the second 
day’s Conference with D. White, the reason is, because in a manner 
all the speech of that meeting was between his Majesty and M. Fisher, 
who beareth that dutiful respect to his Sovereign, that he will not per- 
mit anything said by him to be published now after his death, which he 


[Fisher's Relation of the Conferences.— Occasion of the First Confer.| xxiii 


had so specially forbidden to be published in the time of his life. For 
if this cause had not been, it had been also now published as well as 
the rest; there being nothing in it which M. Fisher should be ashamed 
of, or by which any prejudice might come to the Catholic cause: for if 
there had been any such matter, D. White (who in general terms doth 
in his preface seek to disgrace M. Fisher, saying, “he vanished away 
with disgrace,’’) would not have omitted to set down in particular 
some, at least one, blameworthy argument or answer. But of this, as 
also of D. Featly’s endeavouring to disgrace M. Fisher, by objecting 
falsely-supposed untruths, contradictions, &c., more is to be said in 
another place; and therefore, not being willing to hold thee, gentle 
reader, any longer from the consideration of the first occasion of all this 
business, I commit thee to the protection of Almighty God. 


Thy hearty well-wisher and servant in Christ, 
Wise. Us 


[APPENDIX.. No. IT.] 


The Occasion of a certain Conference had between 1). Francis WuITE 
and M. Joun ΕἼΒΗ ΕΝ. 


THE occasion of this Conference was a certain written paper, given by 
M. Fisher to an honourable lady, who desired something to be briefly 
written, to prove the Catholic Roman Church and faith to be the only 
right. 

The copy of this Paper is as followeth :— 


First, It is certain that there is one, and but one true, divine, infalli- Ephes. iv. 
ble faith, without which none can please God or attain salvation. Heb. xi. 
2. This one true, divine, infallible faith, is wholly grounded upon the eA 
authority of God’s word; and in this it differeth not only from all 
human sciences bred by a clear sight or evident demonstration, and 
from human opinion proceeding from probable arguments or conjec- 
tures, and from human faith built upon the authority of Pythagoras’ 
ipse dixit, or the word of any other man; but also from all other divine 
knowledge had, either by clear vision of the Divine Essence which saints 
have in heaven, or by clear revelation of divine mysteries, which some 
principal persons, to wit, patriarchs and prophets and apostles, had 
on earth; and also from that theological discursive knowledge, which 
learned men attain unto by the use of their natural wit, in deducing 

conclusions, partly out of the foundations of supernatural faith, partly [p. 3. ] 
out of principles of natural reason : from all these kinds of knowledge, I 

say, that one true, divine and infallible faith differeth, in that it is grounded 
wholly upon the authority of the word of God, as human fallible faith is 
grounded upon the authority of the word of man. 


ΧΧΙΥ 


ΓΡ. 4.1 


Matt. 
XXVili. 
John xvi. 
Luke x. 


[{p. 5.] 


1 ΠΤ τη, 11 


[Ρ. 6.1 


[ Appendix. No. 11.) 


3. This word of God, upon which divine infallible faith is grounded, 
is not only the word of God increate, or the prime verity, but also the 
word created, or revelation proceeding from that prime verity, by which 
the truth of Christian mysteries, by Christ, who is true God, was first 
made manifest to the Apostles and other His disciples; partly by the 
exterior preaching of his own mouth, but chiefly by the inward revela- 
tion of His eternal heavenly Father, and by the inspiration of the Holy 
Ghost. Secondly, it was made known to others living in those days, 
partly by outward preaching, partly by the writings of the aforesaid 
Apostles and disciples, to whom Christ gave lawful mission and com- 
mission to teach, saying, “ Teach all nations ;” promising that Himself 
would be with them all days, unto the end of the world; and that His Holy 
Spirit should assist them and teach them, and consequently make them 
able to teach others, all truth, in such sort as whosoever should hear them 
should hear Christ Himself, and so should be made docibiles Dei, and as 
the prophet foretold, docti a Domino, and as S. Paul speaketh of some, 
epistola Christi, “the epistle of Christ,’ written not with ink, but with 
the Spirit of God.” Whence appeareth, that not only the word increate, 
but also the word created, may be truly said to be the foundation of our 
faith ; and not only that word which was immediately inspired by the 
heavenly Father, or by the Holy Ghost, in the hearts of the Apostles 
and other disciples who lived in our Saviour’s days; but also the word 
as well preached as written by the Apostles, and also that word which, 
by the preaching and writing of the Apostles, was by the Holy Ghost 
imprinted in the hearts of the immediate hearers, who were thereupon 
said to be the epistles of Christ, as I have already noted. 

4. This word of God, which I call created, to distinguish it from the 
word increate, being partly preached, partly written, partly inspired or 
imprinted in manner aforesaid, was not to cease at the death of the 
Apostles and disciples and their immediate hearers, but by the appoint- 
ment of God, ‘who would have all men to be saved, and come to the 
knowledge of the truth,” was to be derived to posterity; not by new 
immediate revelations or enthusiasms, nor by sending angels to all par- 
ticular men, but by a continuated succession of visible doctors, and pastors, 
and lawfully sent preachers in all ages, who, partly by transcripts of 
what was written first by the Apostles, but chiefly by vocal preaching 
of the same doctrine, without change, which the pastors of every age 
successively one from another received of their predecessors, as they 
who lived in the age next to the Apostles’ days received it from the 
Apostles, as a sacred depositum, to be kept and preserved in the Church, 
maugre all the assaults of hell-gates, which, according to Christ’s 
promise, shall never prevail against the Church. Whence followeth, 
that not only for 400 or 500 or 600 years, but in all ages since Christ, 
there was, is, and shall be, the true word of God preached by visible 
doctors, pastors, and lawfully sent preachers, so guided by Christ and 
his Holy Spirit, that by them people of every age were, are, and shall 
be sufficiently instructed in true, divine, infallible faith, in all things 


[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.— Occasion of the First Confer.| xxv 


necessary to salvation; to the intent that they may not be little ones, 
wavering, nor carried about “ with every wind of new doctrine,” which Ephes. iv. 
being contrary to the old and first received, must needs be false. 

5. Whereas by this which is already said, (which if need be may be 
more fully proved,) it appeareth, first, that there is one true, divine, 
infallible faith, necessary to salvation, Secondly, that this faith is wholly 
grounded upon the word of God. Thirdly, that this word of God is not 
only the word increate, but also the word created, either inwardly in- 
spired or outwardly preached, or written and continued, without change, 
in one or other continued succession of visible pastors, doctors, and 
lawfully sent preachers, rightly teaching, by the direction of Christ and [p. 8.] 
His Holy Spirit, the said word of God: whereas, I say, all this doth most 
evidently appear by this which is already said. 

That I may prove the Roman Church only, and those who consent 
and agree in doctrine of faith with it, to have that one true, divine, infal- 
lible faith which is necessary to salvation, 


Thus I dispute : 

If it be needful that there should be one or other continual suc- 
cession of visible pastors, in which and by which the unchanged word 
of God, upon which true, divine, infallible faith is grounded, is preserved 
and preached; and no other succession besides that of the Roman 
Church, and others which agree in faith with it, can be showed (as if 
any such were, may be showed) out of approved histories, or other 
ancient monuments; then, without doubt, the Roman Church only, 
and such as agree with it in faith, have that true, divine, infallible faith [p. 9 ] 
which is necessary to salvation. 

But there must be one or other such succession of visible pastors ; and 
no other can be showed out of approved histories or ancient monuments, 
besides that of the Roman Church only, and such others as agree with 
it in faith. Ergo, 

The Roman Church only, and such others as agree with it in faith, 
hath true, divine, infallible faith, necessary to salvation. 

The consequence of the major cannot with reason be denied, and if it 
be, it shall be proved. 

The minor hath two parts. The first whereof is plain, by that which 
is already said, and if need be, it shall be more fully proved out of holy 
Scriptures. 

The second part may be made manifest, first out of histories, secondly 
ont of the confession of Protestants. [p. 10.] 

The second Argument. 

If the Roman Church had the right faith, and never changed any 
substantial part of faith; then it followeth, that it hath now that one 
true, divine, infallible faith which is necessary to salvation. 

But the Roman Church once had the right faith, and never changed 
any substantial part of faith. Ergo, 

The Roman Church now hath the right faith, and consequently Pro- 
testants, so far as they disagree with it, have not the right soul-saving faith. 


XXV1 


[Ρ.11.} 


[p. 12.] 


[p. 13.] 


[p. 14.] 


(Appendix. No. 111. 


The major is evident. 

The minor hath two parts. The first is clear out of S. Paul, Rom. i., 
and is confessed by Protestants. 

The second part J prove thus: If the Roman Church changed any 
substantial part of faith, then there may be showed the point changed, 
the person which was the author of that change, the time when and 
place where the change was made; and others may be named who, per- 
sisting in the ancient faith, continued opposition against the innovation 
and change, as may be showed in other like and less changes, and 
namely in Luther's and Calvin’s change. 

But these circumstances cannot be showed. Zrgo, No change. 

If my adversaries name any point which they affirm to have been 
changed, 1. This will not suffice, unless they name the other circum- 
stances of the author, time. place, and who, persisting in the former 
unchanged faith, opposed and continued opposition against it, as against 
a novelty and heresy, as we can do in other changes, and namely in 
that which was by Luther and Calvin. 

2. These points, which they say were changed after the first six 
hundred years, may be showed them to have been held by more ancient 
approved authors in the same sense in which they are held by the 
Roman Church; which doth argue, that there was no such change made. 





[APPENDIX.. No, TIE] 


A brief Relation of what passed between 1). WuitE and M. Fisuer, 
about the foresaid written Paper. 


Tuls foresaid paper passing from one to another, came to some hands 
who gave it to D. Francis White to answer, and to prepare himself to 
oppugn it ina Conference with M. Fisher, who, when he wrote it and gave 
it to the Lady, did not think or suspect that any such great matter 
should have been made of it as after proved. M. D. White having 
(as he confessed after to M. Fisher) had this paper about ten days in 
his hands, studying what to say to it, came as he was appointed to the 
place of meeting; and M. Fisher, being then a prisoner, was also sent 
for. At the hour and place prefixed, both the one and the other, as 
they were bidden, sat down below a few, but very honourable persons, 
whose names I will only, as M. Fisher first did, express in these 
ensuing letters, L. K., L. M. B., L. B., and M. B. Then D. White drew 
out a copy of the aforesaid written paper, and asked M. Fisher whether 
he wrote it. Unto which M. Fisher answered, “I wrote such a thing, 
and if it be a true copy I will defend it.” 

Then D, White read the first point of the said paper, in which was 
said, ‘‘ There is one, and but one true divine faith,’’ &c. “This,” saith 
1). White, ‘is true, if faith be understood explicit or implicit.” Which 
to be the true sense, M. Fisher assented. 


[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. | 


Then D. White read the second point, in which was said, ‘‘ That this 
true divine faith was wholly grounded upon the word of God,” &c. 
This also D. White yielded to be true. 

Then D. White read the third point, in which was said, ‘“ That this 
word of God, upon which faith was grounded, is not only the word 
increate, but also the word created, to wit, the divine revelation made 
manifest, partly by Christ’s outward preaching, partly by the Holy 
Ghost’s inward inspiration in the hearts of the Apostles,” &c. 

This point also D. White allowed, but knowing what followed in the 
fourth point, he asked M. Fisher whether he thought that the Holy 
Ghost was equally in others as in the Apostles? M. Fisher said, that 
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost was promised and given both to the 
Apostles and others, yet not in the same degree, nor in the same full 
measure; but the Apostles, as being after Christ the prime foundations 
of the Church, had the Holy Ghost in such high degree and full mea- 
sure, that they could and did write canonical Scriptures. Others that 
were pastors and doctors had it in an inferior degree, yet so as by it 
they were enabled to teach infallibly, and without change, the substance 
of all points needful to salvation; especially when in a general council, 
after discussion of the matter, they did conclude as the Apostles and 
seniors did, Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis, ‘It seemeth good to the 
Holy Ghost and us.” The people also had a measure of the same 
Spirit, sufficient to enable them to conceive rightly and to believe 
stedfastly the teaching of their pastors. 

D. White did not disallow the substance of this answer, but only made 
a verbal objection, saying, “The Apostles had inspiration, pastors and 
people only illumination.” 

M. Fisher answered, that both Apostles and pastors had inspiration 
and illumination, in regard the motion of the Holy Ghost, as received 
in the understanding, is called “illumination,” and as received in the 
will, it is called ‘‘ inspiration.” 

Ι,. Κα. bade them leave that verbal controversy, and proceed in the 
matter. D. White excepted against that part of the paper wherein was 
said, That the word of God was partly written, partly unwritten; and 
would have nothing to be the word of God but what is written in 
Scripture. 

M. Fisher, to justify that part of the paper, first alleged that text of 
S. Paul, “ Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by our 
word or epistle.” Secondly, he made these two ensuing arguments, to 
prove that more is to be believed by divine faith than is written in 
Scripture. 

It is necessary to believe, by divine faith, that Genesis, Exodus, and 
other particular books, are canonical and divine Scripture. 

But this to be so, is not assuredly known by the only word written. 
Ergo, το. 

Moreover, Protestants hold and believe this proposition: Nothing is 
to be believed by Christian faith, but what is contained in Scripture. 


XXVil 


ΠΡ 151. 


XXVlil 


[p. 16.] 


[p- 17.] 


[Appendix. No. ITI.] 


But this proposition is not contained in the word written. Ergo, 
Something is believed even by Protestants, which is not contained in 
the written word; and therefore they must admit for a ground of faith 
some word of God not written. 

D, White answered, Although at that time when S. Paul wrote the 
text alleged, some part of God’s word was not written, yet after- 
wards all needful to be believed was written. This Ὁ. White said, but 
did not, nor cannot prove, especially out of any part of the written 
word, 

D. White alleged this text, Omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata, utilis est, 
ὅς. But, as M. Fisher then told him, this text doth not prove the 
point which is to be proved. For this text doth not say, that all which 
is divinely inspired was written; or that Genesis, Exodus, and other 
particular books, are divinely inspired; or that nothing is to be believed 
which is not contained in Scripture; but only saith, “That all, or every 
Scripture divinely inspired, is profitable.” 

D. White said: “Scripture is not only said simply to be profitable, but 
to be profitable to argue, to teach, to correct, to instruct, that the man 
of God may be perfect; and therefore being profitable to all these 
offices, it may be said to be sufficient.” 

M. Fisher replied: “ Although wood be profitable to make the sub- 
stance of the house, to make wainscoat, to make tables and stools, and 
other furniture ; yet hence doth not follow, that wood alone is sufficient 
to build and furnish a house.” I will not say that here 1). White was at 
a nonplus, because I understand that word nonplus doth not please him ; 
but the truth is, that to this D. White did make no answer. And 
for my part, I profess I do not see what answer he could have made 
to the purpose, and worthy of that honourable and understanding 
audience. 

D. White, therefore, without saying anything to this instance, seemed 
to be weary, and giving the paper to M. Fisher, bade him read on. 

M. Fisher, taking the paper, read the fourth point, in which was said, 
“That the word of God manifested to the Apostles, and by them to 
their immediate hearers, was not to cease at their death, but was to be 
continued and propagated without change, in and by one or other com- 
pany of visible pastors, doctors, and lawfully sent preachers, succes- 
sively in all ages,” ὅς. All which to be true being at last granted, or 
not denied by D. White, M. Fisher proposed the first of the two argu- 
ments set down in the aforesaid paper, viz.— 

If there must be in all ages one or other continual succession of visi- 
ble pastors, doctors, and lawfully sent preachers, by whom the unchanged 
word of God, upon which faith is grounded, was preserved and preached 
in all ages since Christ; and no other is visible, or can be showed, 
besides those of the Boman Church, and such as agree in faith with 
them: then, none but the pastors of the Roman Church, and such as 
agree in faith with them, have that one infallible, divine, unchanged 
faith, which is necessary to salvation. 


[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. ] 


But there must be such a visible succession, and none such can be 
showed different in faith from the pastors of the Roman Church. Ergo, 

Only the pastors of the Roman Church, and such as agree in faith 
with them, preserve and teach that one infallible, divine, unchanged faith, 
which is necessary to salvation. 

D. White answered, That it was sufficient to show a succession of 
visible pastors teaching unchanged doctrine in all points fundamental, 
although not in points not fundamental. 

M. Fisher replied, saying, first, that if time permitted, he could 
prove all points of divine faith to be fundamental, (supposing they were 
points generally held, or defined by full authority of the Church); to 
which purpose he did recite the beginning of this sentence of S, 
Augustine: Ferendus est disputator errans in aliis questionibus non diligenter 
digestis, nondum plena Ecclesie authoritate firmatis ; ibi ferendus est error : 
non tantum progredi debet, ut [etiam] ipsum fundamentum quatere moliatur.* 
In which 5. Augustine insinuateth, that to err in any questions defined 
by full authority of the Church, is to shake the foundation of faith, or 
to err in points fundamental. But M. Fisher not having the book at 
hand, and fearing to be tedious in arguing upon a text which he had 
not ready to show, passed on; and, secondly, required D. White to give 
him a catalogue of all points fundamental, or a definition or description, 
(well proved out of Scripture, and in which all Protestants will agree,) 
by which one may discern which be and which be not points 
fundamental. 

D. White rejected this demand, as thinking it unreasonable to require 
of him a catalogue, or definition, or description of points fundamental, 
out of Scripture, in which all Protestants will agree. But, considering 
in what sense 1). White did understand this distinction of points funda- 
mental and not fundamental, (to wit, that none could be saved who did 
not believe all points fundamental rightly, and that none should be 
damned for not believing other points, unless he did wilfully against his 
conscience deny or not believe them,) M. Fisher’s demand was both 
reasonable and most necessary; for since all Protestants agree in hold- 
ing it necessary to be certain of their salvation, and that none can be 
saved who do not believe all points fundamental; and that in these 


XX1X 


[p. 18.] 


points, one must not content himself with implicit faith, but must [p. 19.] 


expressly know them; it is most necessary that all Protestants should 
out of Scripture (which they pretend to be their only rule of faith) find, 
and conclude with unanimous consent certainly, what is, and what is 
not, a fundamental point of faith necessary to salvation. For while 
some hold more, some less to be fundamental, and none of them giveth 
(out of Scripture) a sufficient rule by which it may be discerned which 
is, and which is not fundamental, how can each particular Protestant 
rest assured, that he believeth expressly all points fundamental, or so 
much as is necessary and sufficient to make him assured of salvation? 


« [S. Augustin. Serm. cexciv. olim Serm. xiv. de verbis Apostoli, cap. 21. in 
fin. Op., tom. vy. col. 1194. A.] 


XXX 


{p- 20.] 


John xiv. 
and xvi. 


[p. 21.] 


[ Appendix. No. III.| 


But to return to the Relation. D. White, having rejected M. Fisher’s 
demand, requ‘ring a catalogue, definition, or description out of Scripture, 
in which all Protestants will agree, said, That all those points were 
fundamental which were contained in the Creed of the Apostles. 

M. Fisher might have asked him divers questions upon this answer. 
1. What text of Scripture taught him, that all the points contained in 
the Apostles’ Creed were fundamental in the sense aforesaid? Or, that 
this Creed was composed by the Apostles as a summary of faith, con- 
taining points needful (at least necessitate precepti) to be expressly 
believed by all men? The Church indeed so teacheth, but the Scripture 
hath not any text which doth expressly say so, or whence by necessary 
consequence so much may be gathered; and therefore, according to 
Protestant principles, (permitting nothing to be believed but only Scrip- 
ture,) the Apostles’ Creed ought not to be believed as a rule of any 
point of faith, and much less a rule containing all principal and funda- 
mental points of faith. 

2. M. Fisher might have asked, Whether only the words of the Creed 
are needful to be held as a sufficient foundation of faith, or the Catholic 
sense? If only the words, then the Arians and other condemned heretics 
may be said to have held all the fundamental points sufficient to salva- 
tion; which is contrary to the judgment of antiquity, and is most absurd. 
If the Catholic sense, then the question must be, Who must be judge to 
determine which is the Catholic sense; and whether it be not most 
reasonable and necessary, that the Catholic Church itself, rather than 
any particular man, or sect of men, should teach the true sense? when, 
especially, the Holy Ghost was promised to the Catholic Church, (and 
not to any particular man, or sect of men, differing in doctrine from it,) 
to teach it all truth. 

3. M. Fisher might have asked, Whether all points fundamental were 
expressed in the Creed or not? If they be not, by what other rule shall 
one know what is a point fundamental? If all which is fundamental be 
expressed in the Creed, then to believe only Scripture, or to believe that 
there is any Scripture at all, is not fundamental or necessary to salva- 
tion; but to believe the Catholic Church, and consequently the truth 
of all such doctrines of faith which she generally teacheth or defineth 
in her general councils, is fundamental. So, as we may say with S. 
Athanasius, ‘“‘ Whosoever will be saved, must believe the Catholic faith,” 
(that is, the faith taught by the Catholic Church,) and this not only in 
part or in a corrupt sense, but in all points and in Catholic sense. For 
as the same S, Athanasius saith, ‘ Unless one believe the said Catholic 
faith” (integram inviolatamque) “ entire and inviolate, without doubt he 
shall perish everlastingly.” All these questions M. Fisher might have 
asked, but he at that present only asked, Whether all articles of the 
Creed were held by ἢ). White to be fundamental? 

To which question D. White answered, That all was fundamental. 

M. Fisher asked, Whether the article of Christ’s descending into hell 
were fundamental? 


[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. | 


D. White said, Yes. 

Why then, said M. Fisher, did M. Rogers affirm, “ That the Church 
of England is not yet resolved what is the right sense of that article?” > 

It was answered, that M. Rogers was a private man. M. Fisher 
replied, That his book in the title professeth to be set out by public 
authority. To which M. Fisher might have added, That the book so 
set out by public authority, beareth title of the Catholic or universal 
Doctrine of the Church of England; by which addition is showed a 
difference betwixt this book of M. Rogers, and some others which were 
objected to be set out by licence of the Catholic side: for these our books 
are only licensed to come out in the name of such or such a private 
author, and as books declaring his private opinions; but this of M. 
Rogers was authorized, and graced with the title of the Catholic Doc- 
trine of the Church of England, and therefore ought by Protestants to 
be more respected than other private men’s books. 

M. Fisher, not thinking it necessary to press this difference, returned 
again to Ὁ. White’s first answer to the main argument, in which he 
having said, That it was sufficient to show a visible succession of such 
as held points fundamental, did implicitly grant it necessary, that a suc- 
cession should be showed of such visible pastors as did hold all points, 


ΧΧΧῚ 


which at least himself held to be fundamental, or necessary to salvation, [p. 22.] 


Whereupon M. Fisher bade D. White name a continual company, or 
succession of visible Protestants, (different from the Roman Church 
which they call Papists,) holding all points which he accounted funda- 
mental. 

D. White expressly granted, That he could not show such a visible 
succession of pastors and doctors, (differing in doctrine from the Roman 
Church,) who held all points which he accounted fundamental. Which 
his ingenuous confession I desire the reader to note, applying it to the 
argument which M. Fisher proposed, showing that only the Roman 
Church hath had such a succession. For if, as the argument urgeth, 
one such succession hath been, and none differing in doctrine from the 
Roman can be showed by D. White, (being accounted a prime Protestant 
controversialist, who may teach such as D. Featly, as was lately pro- 
fessed by D. Featly himself,) we may absolutely conclude, that no such 
visible succession was of Protestants, so far as they differ in doctrine 
from the Roman Church; and consequently till they assign some other, 
(which they can never do,) they must acknowledge the Roman to be 
the only Church, or at least a Church which hath had a visible succes- 
sion, teaching the unchanged faith of Christ in all ages, in all points, at 
least fundamental: which being acknowledged, worthily might M. 
Fisher ask (as he did ask) D. White, Why Protestants made a schism 
from the Roman Church? and, Why Protestants did persecute Roman 
Catholics, contrary to the custom of the ancient Fathers, who still kept 
unity with other Churches, although in their opinion holding errors, 


» Rogers in his Doctrine of the Church of England, Art. 3. [vide infra, Sect. 
xii. No. 1. p- 51, &e.] 


XXXil 


[P- 23.] 


[p. 24.] 


Matt. 
XXxiii. 


[ Appendix. No. III.) 


until the Catholic Church by full authority defined them to be errors in 
faith, and that after such definition of the Church (which was yet never 
made against the Roman Church), they would still obstinately persist 
in error? as appeareth in S. Cyprian’s case. To these demands made by 
M. Fisher, D. White answered: We do not persecute you for reli- 
gion. About which answer I desire the gentle reader to observe, that 
Μ. Fisher asked two questions: 1. Why Protestants made a schism 
from the Roman Church? 2, Why Protestants did persecute Roman 
Catholics ? 

To the first of these questions, being about schism, D. White answered 
not a word, and yet this was the most important question, sufficient to 
show Protestants to be in a damnable state, unless they repent and 
return to unity with the Roman Church. For on the one side, it cannot 
be denied but that schism, or separation of oneself from Church unity, 
is a most damnable sin, which cannot be made lawful for any cause, nor 
cannot without repentance and returning to unity be washed away, even 
with martyrdom itself, as the ancient Fathers confess. And on the 
other side it is evident (and even confessed by some Protestants), that 
Protestants did separate themselves from the Roman Church, which 
is confessed to be the mother Church, and which cannot be showed to 
have separated itself from a former Church yet extant, as the true 
Church of Christ must always be visibly extant. Neither can there be 
showed any other reason why Protestants did make and continue this 
their separation, than were or might have been alleged by heretics and 
schismatics of ancient times, separating themselves from the Catholic 
Roman Church : for setting aside all temporal respects, which doubtless 
were (but were very insufficient and unworthy) causes why some did 
first, and do yet continue this separation; there cannot be imagined any 
pretended cause which may not be reduced to these two heads: to wit, 
corruption of manners, or corruption of doctrine. Corruption of man- 
ners is not a just cause to make one leave the faith, sacraments, and 
rites of the Church, our Saviour having sufficiently forewarned what is 
to be done in this case, when he said, “ Upon the chair of Moses the 
Scribes and Pharisees have sitten; all, therefore, that they say unto you 
observe and do, but according to their works do ποῖ." For by this is 
showed, that the separation which in other places of Scripture is com- 
manded, is not meant so, as if it were to be made by neglecting or con- 
tradicting the doctrine of lawfully authorized pastors, or by corporaliy 
absenting oneself from communicating with them in necessary sacra- 
ments and Church rites, but only spiritually, to depart from the imitation 
of their ill manners. The second, to wit, corruption of doctrine, per- 
taining to the common faith of the Catholic Church, neither did nor can 
happen to the whole visible Church: Christ having promised, that the 
Holy Ghost shall be always with it to teach it all truth; and that hell- 
gates shall never so prevail against it as to overthrow in it the founda- 
tion of all goodness, to wit, true faith. And for other errors, in such 
questions as are not determined by full authority of the said Catholic 


[Fisher's Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. | 


Church, S. Augustine’s rule is to be observed, when he saith,‘ 
Ferendus est disputator errans: neither must one for the error of a few 
leave the society and communion of all; neither must one or a few, pre- 
suming upon their own private reading and interpreting of Scripture, or 
their private spirit (which is or may be the common pretext of all here- 
tics), censure and condemn the doctrine or practice of the universal 
Catholic Church to be erroneous: which to do is, by S. Bernard’s 
sentence, “intolerable pride,” and in S, Augustine’s judgment, ‘ inso- 
lent madness.” 

The beginning, therefore, and continuance of the schism and separa- 
tion of the Protestants from the Catholic Roman Church, (in which 
even, as Calvin confesseth,’ there was made a discession and departure 
from the whole world,) is very damnable, and altogether inexcusable. 
Which, perhaps, was the cause why D. White passed over that part of 
the question (touching this schism) with silence, and only answered, as 
is above said, to the other part, saying, ‘“ We do not persecute you for 
religion.” 

To which answer M. Fisher replied, saying, You do us wrong, for 
myself being a prisoner was never taxed with any state matter, but do 
suffer for religion. L. M. B. made another answer, saying, You of your 
side did first persecute Protestants. 

M. Fisher answered, That we Catholics hold all points in which Pro- 
testants differ from us in doctrine of faith, to be fundamental, and 
necessary to be believed, or at least not denied, and so may have cause 
to punish them who deny or contradict. But Protestants, who believe 
Catholics to hold right in all points which themselves esteem funda- 
mental, have no reason to persecute us for supposed errors in points 
mot fundamental, which Protestants do not account damnable. For 
better clearing whereof, M. Fisher asked D. White, Whether he thought 
error in a point not fundamental, to be damnable ? 

D. White said, No, unless one hold it against his conscience. 

M. Fisher asked, How one could hold an error against his conscience? 
meaning that one could not inwardly in his conscience believe that to 
be true, which he knew in his conscience to be an error. 

Ὁ. White answered, That by perversity of will he might hold an error 
against the known truth. Which answer is true, if he mean that one 
who knoweth the truth at this instant, may after, by perversity of will, 
incline the understanding to hold the contrary error. But that at the 
same instant he should know the truth actually, and yet actually hold 
in the same instant the contrary error in his conscience, or inward 
knowledge, is more than I think any philosopher can explicate. For 
this were to know and not know, and to believe two contraries—truth 
and error—about the same object, in the same subject, the inward con- 
science, at one and the same instant; which is impossible. 

M. B. marvelling at D. White’s answer, asked him again the same 


* Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 14. [vide infra, Sect. x. No. 1. p. 31, ὅς. 
ἃ Calvin. 1. Ep. epist. 141. [vide infra, p. 358. note 4.] 
VOL, I1,—LAUD. e 


XXXlll 


[p. 25.] 


[p. 26.] 


XXX1V 


[p- 27.] 


Matt. xviii. 


[p. 28.] 


[ Appendix. No. 111.] 


question, saying, May one be saved that holdeth error in points of faith 
not fundamental, supposing he hold not against his conscience ? 

D. White said, Yes. 

Those, saith M. B., who, suffering for conscience, hold error in faith 
against their conscience, are worthy to be damned. 

M. Fisher having observed, that D. White had insinuated that one 
might be damned for holding error in points of faith not fundamental, 
in case he hold them against his conscience, said, If it be damnable to 
hold errors in points not fundamental, in case one hold them wilfully 
against his conscience, a fortiori, it is damnable to hold the like errors 
wilfully and obstinately against the known judgment and conscience of 
the Church. For, as 8. Bernard saith,¢ Que major superbia, quam ut unus 
homo judicium suum preferat toti congregationi? ‘What greater pride, 
than that one man should prefer his judgment (or conscience) before 
the judgment (and conscience) of the whole Church ?” 

D. White said, He remembered that sentence of 5. Bernard; but it is 
not remembered that he gave any good answer, either to that sentence 
or to the argument confirmed by it. Neither indeed can he give any 
good auswer, in regard it is certain, that the judgment and conscience 
of the whole Church, (or congregation of so many faithful, wise, learned, 
and virtuous men, assisted by the promised Spirit of truth,) is incom- 
parably more to be respected, and preferred before the judgment and 
conscience of any private man; as appeareth by that of Christ our 
Saviour, who, without excepting any who pretendeth to follow his con- 
science, and without distinguishing the matter in which he pretendeth 
to follow it into points fundamental and not fundamental, absolutely 
aflirmeth, “ He that will not hear’’ (that is, believe and obey) ‘the 
Church, let him be to thee as an heathen and publican.” 

Hence Protestants, who prefer their private judgment and conscience 
before the judgment and conscience of the Catholic Church, in inter- 
preting Scriptures or otherwise, may learn in what state they remain, 
so long as they do thus, being by the censure of 8. Bernard extremely 
“proud,” and in the judgment of S. Augustine, insolently ‘“ mad,” 
and by the sentence of Christ himself, to be accounted no better than 
“heathens and publicans.” 

It seemeth that D. White did not deeply ponder this point, or else 
was willing to pass over it, as a cat over hot coals; and so he betook 
himself to oppugn another part of M. Fisher’s paper, in which is said that 
‘“‘No company of visible pastors delivering unchanged doctrine, could 
be showed in all ages, besides those of the Roman Church.” 

D. White denied this to be true, and, notwithstanding he had before 
said that he could not show any company differing in doctrine from the 
Roman Church, holding in all ages all fundamental points, said, that 
both the Greek Church and the Protestant Church had such a succession 
of visible pastors: which two sayings, how D, White would reconcile, 
pertaineth to him to declare. 


€ Bern. Serm. de Resurrect, [vide supra, Sect. xxi. No. 4. p. 153.] 


[ Fisher's Relation of the Conferences.—The First Conference. 


M. Fisher replied, and told him that the Greek Church changed and 
erred in a point of faith, to wit, about the Holy Ghost. A like or 
greater change he might, and in likelihood would have told him to have 
been in many points held by the Protestant Church, if he had not been 
interrupted by L. K., who asked, “ Whether, notwithstanding that error 
of the Greek Church, ignorant men might not be saved?” 

M. Fisher answered to L. K.’s question, saying, Some ignorant men 
may be excused from actual sin in holding that error, as, through in- 
vincible ignorance, one holding some error against the Holy Trinity 
itself may be excused; yet for other actual sins they might be 
damned, for want of means necessary for remission of them. This 
answer was meant by M. Fisher of such ignorant men who, although 
by invincible ignorance excused from the actuai sin of positive infidelity, 
heresy, and schism, wanted true supernatural faith, hope, and charity, 
out of which an act of true contrition springeth; or wanted the true 
and lawful use of the sacrament of penance and priestly absolution ; 
which being needful to obtain pardon of sin, may easily be wanting to 
such people as commit other sins against the light of nature, or against 
those good motions of grace, which now and then Almighty God giveth 
to all sorts, who consequently (through this their own fault) are not 
illuminated with true supernatural faith, but are permitted still to remain 
in infidelity, or heresy, or schism, or in a negative disposition of want 
of all faith, devotion, and desire of union with God and such good men 
who truly serve God in his true Church: of which sort of ignorant 
people, it is to be doubted there be but too many in all, especially infi- 
del, heretical, or schismatical countries. But hence doth not follow, 
neither did M. Fisher ever mean to affirm, that all ignorant Grecians, 
Protestants, or of any other sort of schismatics, heretics, or infidels, are 
damned : for if, on the one side, this their ignorance be invincible, so as 
to excuse them from the actual sin of their schism, heresy, and infidelity ; 
and on the other side, they by Almighty God’s special grace be pre- 
served from other actual mortal sin, and by the same grace be excited 
extraordinarily to faith, hope, charity, and to true contrition for all 
sin, they may be saved. But this being extraordinary, no man ought 
ordinarily presume or rely on it, especially so as to neglect the ordinary 
means, known to be in the unity of the Catholic Roman Church. 

After this D. White excepted against another point of M. Fisher’s 
paper, in which was said, ‘That the Roman Church had still held un- 
changed doctrine of faith in all points,” &c. And for instances of change 
made, he objected “ transubstantiation, images, communion under one 
kind, sacrament of penance,” &c. These points he slightly began to 
touch, but did not, as the paper required, name when, and by whom 
the change was made in these points, but said, It was not needful to 
show these circumstances. As for example, saith he, the Pharisees held 
error in saying, that the gold of the altar was more holy than the altar, 
which was a change in doctrine, and yet you cannot show when, and by 
whom this change was made. 


XXXV 


[p. 29. ] 


[Ρ. 30. ] 


XXXV1 


[p. 31.] 


[p. 32.] 


[ Appendix. No. 111. 


To this M. Fisher answered, That although he could not on the sud- 
den tell when, and by whom this change was made, yet he did not 
doubt but that with study he might find it out. And so indeed he might 
have named the-author of the sect of Pharisees, who first brought in 
that error, and the time when that sect began, which is enough, For 
we do not press Protestants to tell the very day or hour in which every 
one of our supposed errors were brought in; but to name the first 
author of any erroneous doctrine, or of any sect of men who were 
specially noted for teaching such a peculiar doctrine, and about what 
year or age that sect of men first began; and who they were, who then 
noted them to teach such doctrine, contrary to the formerly received 
faith of the universal Church; as must be, and is usually noted, when 
especially any such notorious matters as those which 1). White objected, 
were by any man, or any sect of men, taught contrary to the formerly 
received faith of the universal Church. 

Sith, therefore, the aforesaid circumstances are usually noted in other 
such kind of changes, and that it is morally impossible that such 
great changes, and so universally spread over the world, should be 
made either in an instant or in succession of time, and that not one or 
other writer would have made mention of the change, and when, where, 
and by whom it was made, as they do of all other such matters, D. 
White (who objected such great changes of doctrine to have been made 
in the Roman Church, accusing hereby grievously her, which confessedly 
was once the true mother Church), is obliged and bound not only to 
prove this his accusation, by showing the foresaid circumstances in 
good authors, if he will not be accounted an unnatural and false calum- 
niator of his true mother Church; but he must also show another 
continually visible Church, which never did admit any such changes in 
doctrine of faith, if he will not impiously deny the truth of the prophecies 
and promises of Scripture, whereby we learn that hell-gates shall not 
prevail against the Church, and that Christ Himself, and His Holy Spirit, 
will always be with the Church, teaching it, and consequently enabling 
it to teach us all truth, and making it the pillar and ground of truth, 
and consequently free from all error in matters of faith. 

But D. White can never prove his accusation by showing out of good 
authors the aforesaid circumstances of the change of the Roman Church 
in doctrine of faith, nor can show any other continually visible Church, 
which did not admit change in doctrine of faith. Let him therefore 
consider, whether it be not better to recall his false unnatural accusation 
of his mother the Roman Church, being sorry for it, with purpose here- 
after humbly to hear, believe, obey, and follow her doctrine and direc- 
tion, rather than to incur not only the foresaid censure of men, but also 
of Christ Himself, who saith, ‘‘ He that will not hear the Church, let him 
be to thee as an heathen and publican,” that is, cast ont of the favour 
of God and all good men, both in this present life, and also, if he do not 
in time repent, in the future eternal life. 

These be the chief points which I have gathered out [of] M. Fisher’s 


[Fisher’s Relation of the Conferences.— The First Conference. | 


first Relation, which he showed to D. White with an intent that he 
should put him in mind if anything were not remembered or misremem- 
bered: but the Doctor at that time did not, nor could truly say, that 
anything was falsely related; only he said,—1l. That-himself did not 
remember a point or two, which both M. Fisher and M. B. did perfectly 
remember to have been so as is here related. 2. He said that some- 
thing more was said than is related; which M. Fisher did not deny, but 
was willing to add anything that D. White could put him in mind of, or 
that himself should after remember: and so being put in remembrance 
made by D. White, to wit, Whereas M. Fisher, upon some occasion or 
other, had said, That although a general council might err in the pre- 
mises, yet not in the conclusion; D. White objected, saying, That in all 
sciences the conclusion is no more certain than the premises, and there- 
fore if the premises ina general council be fallible, the conclusion cannot 
be infallible. To which M. Fisher answered, saying, Although in sciences 
which depend only upon the light of nature, the conclusion cannot be 
more certain than the premises; yet in a general council, assisted by 
the Holy Ghost, in the final conclusion or definitive sentence, the 
conclusion is always infallible, although sometimes the premises be 
fallible. 

And M. Fisher had great reason to answer in this manner. Indeed, 
if to define a matter of faith were to conclude the same by way of dis- 
course out of principles, as the argument doth suppose, then if councils 
might err in the premises, they might likewise err in their conclusion and 
definitive sentence. But this supposition is false, infallibility in defining 
coming from a divine assistance, not to infer one thing out of another 
by way of connexion and consequence, but to decree and declare what 
is conform to the word of God, by way of authority, binding the Church 
so to believe. And so this definition is ever infallible, though all the argu- 
ments the council brings by way of discourse in proof of the definition, 
either before or after the same is made, be not still demonstrative. 

Another objection M. Fisher hath since that time remembered, to wit, 
that D. White alleged something out of Abulensis, in Matt. vii. 19, 
which M. Fisher deferred to make answer unto, until he might see the 
author himself, having had experience enough how falsely many 
ministers cite authors, and how false their note-books be. Now M. 
Fisher hath seen the book, and findeth the words cited by D. White to 
contain two parts; one as contrary to D. White as the other seemeth 
contrary to M. Fisher; and that the whole discourse of Abulensis in 
that place showeth, that even that part which seemeth contrary to M. 
Fisher, doth nothing prejudice M. Fisher’s cause, as will appear to any 
that will duly ponder all that is there said of the authority of the Church, 
in defining what books be and what be not canonical. For Abulensis 
expressly declareth, “that all, and only those books are to be accounted 
canonical, which the Church doth define to be canonical:” and the 
reason why he did (in his private opinion) think one or two books not 
to be canonical, which we do now hold for canonical, is, for that the 


XXXVU 


[p. 33. ] 


ΓΡ. 34.] 


XXXVill 


[p. 35.] 


[ Appendix. No. 111. 


Church had not then so clearly defined them to be canonical, as it hath 
done since Abulensis wrote that passage: as there are divers other 
books held for canonical, even by Protestants, which have not been so 
esteemed by some of the ancient Fathers, in regard the Church had not 
then so clearly defined them to be canonical, as it hath done in after times. 

A third objection was made by D. White about “the worship of 
images,”’ which D. White would needs affirm to be an “innovation, and 
gross error of Papists:’ which M. Fisher denied, and said that the 
worship (meaning the same worship which is due to the prototypon) 
is not given by us to the image itself. This objection D. White urged 
no further the first day, but the next day of meeting he urged those 
words of Bellarmine, Datur veneratio ipsi imagini. M. Fisher answered, 
That Bellarmine did not mean that the same worship which was due to 
the prototypon, was given to the image itself, but an inferior degree of 
worship, and that also for the prototypon’s sake. 

Then D. White betook himself to Suares, saying that Suares did hold 
that the same worship which was given to the prototypon, was given 
to the image. M. Fisher answering said, You do not understand our 
authors: for, said M. Fisher, they that seem to give most, give the least 
to images; for those that say that one and the same worship is given 
to the image and that which is represented by it, hold the image to be 
incapable of any part of worship, and so the whole to pertain to the 
thing. Whereas others who distinguish one honour to be due to the 
thing, and another far inferior to be given to the image, give something, 
as M. Fisher explicated in the example of the respect one beareth to 
the picture of his friend, which although it be not capable of that 
friendly respect and affection which by looking upon it he exciteth in 
himself towards his friend represented by it, yet it is capable of an 
inferior degree of respect, as to be set in a more worthy and eminent 
place, &c., than it should be if it were the picture of some other who 
were not one’s friend. 

These be the chief passages of this Conference between D. White 
and M. Fisher, so far as hath come to my notice, who have used so 
much diligence in inquiring the truth of this matter, as I have no doubt 
but for substance I have not omitted anything that may much import, 
considering what the occasion and subject of the Conference was; to 
wit, that paper written by M. Fisher, in which he proved the Roman 
Church, and those who agree in faith with it, to be that company of 
whom every one must learn what is the truth, in all points and ques- 
tions of faith necessary to salvation: which paper not being substan- 
tially confuted, as it was not by anything said by D. White or any 
other at that time or after, D. White is yet obliged to make a better 
answer, if he mean to give satisfaction either to Catholics or Protestants 
in this most important point of a perpetually visible Church, of which 
all sorts must learn true, divine, infallible faith, necessary to salvation. 


| Misher’s Relation of the Conferences —The Third Conference.| χχχὶχ 


[APPENDIX. No. IV.] 


A Relation of the Conference between a certain B. and M. Fisunr, [p. 37.] 
defended against the said B. his Chaplain. 





THE PREFACE. 


GENTLE READER,—I think it needful to let thee understand, that 

whereas the Chaplain of a certain B. saith, (in the preface of his Answer 
to a Relation of what passed between the said B. and M. Fisher,) “ That 
the Jesuit spread abroad papers of this Conference, which were full of 
partiality to his cause, more full of calumny against the B.;” the truth 
is, that the Jesuit did not at all, so much as in speech, and much less [p. 38.] 
in papers, publish this or either of the other two Conferences which he 
had with D. White, until he was forced unto it by false reports given 
out about them, to his private disgrace, and to the prejudice of the 
Catholic cause. Neither then did he spread papers abroad, but only 
delivered a very few copies to special friends; and this not with intent 
to calumniate either the B. or the Doctor, or to make the papers common, 
but to enable his friends to answer and countermand such false reports 
as they had heard or might hear. Which being so, I do not see how 
the Chaplain can free himself from the faults of partiality and calumny, 
whereof he doth accuse the Jesuit, unless he do (by some other proofs 
better than his own or his master’s bare affirmation) prove that the 
Jesuit spread such papers; showing also particularly wherein he did 
relate partially to his cause, and calumniously against the B. I say [p. 39.] 
“relate,” in regard I do not at this present promise to examine exactly 
all doctrines insinuated in the Jesuit’s Relation, and impugned by the 
Chaplain (as neither having sufficient leisure, nor commodity of books 
requisite for such a work); but the Relation to have been sincere and 
true, free from partiality, more free from calumny, I undertake to defend. 
For which purpose I think best to set down the Jesuit’s Relation (for 
the most part as I find it in the Chaplain’s printed copy) in greater 
letters, and in a lesser letter the Chaplain’s chiefest exceptions, and my 
answer unto them. 

I think the Jesuit himself, for his own particular respect, could be 
content to let pass this partial and calumnious censure of his Relation, 
suffering it patiently as one of the ordinary persecutions which he and 
others at this day endure for the Catholic faith, and for that peculiar [p. 40.] 
order of life which he professeth, under the name of the Society of JESUS; 
comforting himself with the example of Christ’s Apostles, “who Acts v. 41. 
rejoiced that they were thought worthy to suffer contumely for the 
name of Jesus.” In this respect, I say, I suppose the Jesuit himself 
could be content, that nothing were said to the Chaplain’s censure. But 
considering the hurt which may come to the common cause by his un- 

Just disgrace, I have thought it necessary to defend the sincerity and 


{p. 41.] 


[ Appendix. No. IV.] 


truth of his Relation, and some of the chief heads of doctrine contained 
in it, to the intent that hereby men may be moved better to trust what 
he hath written heretofore, or may write hereafter, in defence of the 
Catholic faith and Church; and less trust his adversaries, who without 
just cause do so much endeavour to calumniate his person or writings. 


M. Fisner’s Relation of the Conference between a certain B. and 
himself. 


The occasion of this Conference was, &c. 


RELATION OF THE CONFERENCE 


BETWEEN 


WILLIAM LAUD, 


THEN LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S, NOW LORD ARCHBISHOP OF 
CANTERBURY, 


AND 


MR. FISHER THE JESUIT, 


BY THE COMMAND OF KING JAMES OF EVER BLESSED MEMORY: 


WITH AN ANSWER TO SUCH EXCEPTIONS AS 


Ike (Gh 


TAKES AGAINST IT. 








f. The occasion of this conference was, 


%. The occasion of this third conference you should know 
sufficiently. You were an actor in it, as well as in two 


other. 


Whether you have related the two former truly, 


appears by Doctor White, the late Reverend Lord Bishop of 


Ely, his relation,’ or exposition of them. 


I was present at 


none, but this third; of which I here give the church an 


a (The title of this work of Fisher 
(so called) is: Trun Retatrons oF 
Sunpry Conferences had between cer- 
tain Protestant Doctowrs, and a 
JesuitE called M. Fisher, (then 
Prisoner in London, for the Catho- 
lique Fayth:) togeather with De- 
fences of the same. In wuicu ts 
shewed, that there hath alwayes beene, 
since Christ, a Visible Church, and 
in it a Visible Succession of Doc- 
tours and Pastours, teaching the wn- 
changed Doctrine of Fayth, left by 
Christ and his Apostles, in all points 
necessary to Salvation. Anpd THAT, 
Not Protestants, but only Roman Ca- 
tholiques have had, and can show 
such a Visible Church ; and in it such 
a Succession of Pastoursand Doctours, 
of whome men may securely learne 


what points of Fayth are necessary to 
Salvation. By A. C. 1 beseech you, 
Brethren, marke them which cause 
divisions and offences contrary to the 
Doctrine you have learned, and avoyd 
them. Rom. xvi. 17. Permissu Su- 
periorum. ΜΡΟΧΧΥΙ] 

> [The title of this work is: A 
Replie to Jesuit Fisumr’s answere 
to certain questions propounded by 
his most gratious Mate King Jamns. 
By Francis Wurtz, D. of Div. Deane 
of Carlile, Chaplaine to his Matic. 
Hereunto is annexed a Conference of 
the right R. B. of St. David’s with the 
same Jesuit. Ciprianus de Lapsis. 
Nee Ecclesive jungitur qui ab Evan- 
gelio separatur. Lonpon : Printed by 
Adam Islip. 1624.] 


B 


SEcTION 
L 
[A. C. 
p. 41.7] 


CoNnFERENOE 
WITH 
Fisuer. 


[A.C.p.41.] 
1fa...A.C.] 


? {nothing 
. 4.0.) 


3 any, 
curet A.C.) 


LP 
© 


ον πο ὃς 


Legitimate Use of individual Judgment. 


account. 


But of this third, whether that were the cause 
which you allege, I cannot tell. 


You say, 


Ἐξ. [for that] it was observed, that im the’ second 
conference [with D. White,]| all the speech was about 


particular matters; [and] little or none* about a 


continual, infallible, visible Church, which was the 


chief and only point in which a certain lady required 


satisfaction; as having formerly settled in her mind, 


that it was not for her, or any? other unlearned 


persons, to take upon them to judge* of particulars, 
without depending upon the judgment of the true 


Church. 


* (To wit, absolutely, and to rely upon their private judgment, so as to 
adventure salvation upon it alone, or chiefly—aA. C. marg. note to p. 41.] 


%. The opinion of that honourable person in this, was 


never opened to me. 


And it is very fit the people should 


look to the judgment of the Church, before they be too busy 


with particulars. 


But yet neither scripture, nor any good 


authority, denies them some moderate use of their own 
understanding and judgment, especially in things familiar 
and evident; which even ordinary © capacities may as easily 


© (Quis enim non intelligat, quod 
impassibilis sit divinitas, passibilis 
vero sit humana fragilitas ? Cum ergo 
tam ex eo quod Deus est, quam etiam 
ex illo quod homo est Christus, intel- 
ligatur esse permixtus et esse sociatus. 
Verbum enim caro factum est, et habi- 
tavit in nobis,] quis non sine ullo ma- 
gistro, aut interprete ex se [sese] facile 
cognoscat, [non illud in Christo mor- 
tuum esse quod Deus est, sed illud in 
illo mortuum esse quod homo est ?|— 
Novat. de Trin. c. 23.—[{c. xx. p. 719. 
C. ad caleem Op. Tertull.] (et loquitur 
{se. Novatianus] de mysterio Passionis 
Christi.) —Dijudicare est mensurare, 
ete. Unde et mens dicitur ἃ metiendo. 
[“ 4. Preeterea, Damascen. dicit quod 
ex imaginatione fit opinio, deinde 
mens dijudicans opinionem sive vera 
sit, sive falsa, dijudicat veritatem. 
Unde et mens dicitura metiendo. De 
quibus igitur judicatum est jam et de- 
terminatum, vere dicitur intellectus. ] 





Tho. [Aquin. Summ.] pars 1. Q[ueest]. 
79. A[rt]. 9. ad 4. [p. 145.]|—To what 
end, then, isa mind and an understand- 
ing given a man, if he may not apply 
it to measure truth? Et διάνοια [ dici- 
tur] ἀπὸ τοῦ διανοεῖν, i.e. ab eo quod 
consideret, ac discernat.—Damase. 1. ii. 
Fid. Orth. ο. 22. Quia [ait Damase. | dis- 
cernit inter verum et falsum. [ἐκ δὲ 
φαντασίας γίνεται dota’ εἶτα ἡ διάνοια 
ἀνακρίνασα τὴν δόξαν, εἴτε ἀληθής ἐστιν, 
εἴτε ψευδὴς, κρίνει τὸ ἀληθές" ὅθεν καὶ 
διάνοια λέγεται ἀπὸ τοῦ διανοεῖν, καὶ δια- 
xplvew.—S. Joann. Damascen. de Fid. 
Orthodox. lib. ii. cap. 22. Op., tom. i. 
p. 187. B. ed. Lequien. Paris. 1712.] 

And A, C. himself, p. 41, [v. supra,] 
denies not all judgment to privatemen; 
but says, “they are not so to rely 
absolutely upon their private judg- 
ment, as to adventure salvation upon 
it alone, or chiefly ;’ which no man 
will deny. 


Point at issue respecting the Infallibility of the Church. 3 


understand, as read. And therefore some particulars a Sxcrioys 
Christian may judge without depending. Il. ΣΉΝ. 





¥. This lady, therefore, having heard it granted in [A.C.p.42.] 
the first conference, That there must be a con- 
tinual, visible company ever since Christ, teaching 


unchanged doctrine in all fundamental points,’ that '[points 
fundament- 


is, [in all] pomts necessary to salvation, desired to al... A.C.] 
hear this confirmed, and proof brought [to show] 

which was that continual, infallible,* visible Church, 

in which one may, and out of which one cannot, 

attain salvation. And, therefore, having appointed 

a time of meeting between’ a [certain] %. and me,’ 2 (betwixt 
and thereupon having sent for the %, and me, before ear 
the %, came, the lady, and a friend of hers, Game 

first to the room where I was, and debated before me 

the aforesaid question, and not doubting of the first 

part, to wit, That there must be a continual visible 
Church, as they had heard granted by D. White, 


sande le Klee. sive 
caret A.C.] 


* (The Chaplain noting the word infallible to be sometimes put in, some- 
times left out, taxeth M. Fisher of speaking distractedly. But I note herein, 
that M. Fisher spake most advisedly, and with precise care of punctual truth : 
for when he speaketh of what was observed, or desired by the lady, he putteth 
in the word infallible, because he knew it was an infallible Church which she 
sought torely upon. But when he speaketh of what D. White or L. K. granted, 
he leaveth it out, because they did not mention the word infallible, but only 
granted a visible Church in all ages, teaching unchanged doctrine, in all matters 
necessary to salvation.—A. C. marg. note to p. 42.] 


1.- -ῶδ, What Ὁ. White and L. K. granted, I heard not: §3. 
but I think, both granted a continual and a visible Church ; 
neither of them an infallible, at least in your sense. And 
yourself, in this relation, speak distractedly; for, in these 
few lines, from the begining hither, twice you add “ infal- 
lible” between “continual” and “ visible,” and twice you leave 
it out. But this concerns D. W., and he hath answered it. 
II.—Here A.C. steps in, and says, “ The Jesuit did not 
speak distractedly, but most advisedly. For,’ saith he, A C. p. 42. 
“ where he relates what Ὁ. White or L. K. granted, he [marg-not.] 
B2 


4 Can the Church of Rome err in the Faith ὃ 


Conrerencr leaves out the word ‘infallible,’ because they granted it not ; 
Fisnnr, Dut where he speaks of the lady, there he adds it, because 
τι the Jesuit knew it was an infallible Church which she sought 
to rely upon.” How far the Catholic Militant Church of 
Christ is infallible, is no dispute for this place, though you 
shall find it after. But sure the Jesuit did not speak most 
advisedly, nor A. C. neither, nor the lady herself, if she said 
she desired to rely upon an infallible Church. For an infal- 
lible Church denotes a particular Church, in that it is set 
in opposition to some other particular Church, that is not 
infalhble. Now I, for my part, do not know what that lady 
desired to rely upon. This I know: if she desired such a 
particular Church, neither this J esuit, nor any other, is 
able to show it her; no, not Bellarmine himself, though of 
very great ability to make good any truth, which he under- 
takes for the Church of Rome. But no strength cau uphold 
an error against truth,’ where truth hath an able defendant. 
Now, where Bellarmine sets himself purposely to make this 
‘good, that “The particular Church of Rome cannot err in 
matter of faith,’* out of which it follows, that there may be 
found a particular infallible Church, you shall see what he 

is able to perform. 

Iifl.—1l. First, then, after he hath distinguished, to 
express his meaning, in what sense the particular Church 
of Rome cannot err in things which are de fide, of the faith ; 
he tells us, this firmitude is, because the See Apostolic is 
fixed there. “ And this,” he saith, “is most true.”! And for 
proof of it, he brings three Fathers to justify it. 








Δ {Non enim bonum hominis est 
hominem vincere; sed bonum est 
homini ut eum veritas vineat volen- 
tem; quia malum est homini ut eum 


vandum hoc loco, in alio sensu accipi 
deberefirmitatem Ecclesiae Romane in 
fide, et in alio firmitatem pontificis ; 
nam pontifex non potest errare errore 


veritas yineat invitum. Nam ipsa] 
vincat necesse est, sive negantem, sive 
confitentem.—S, Augustin. Epist. 174. 
[238. ad Pascentium, sect. 29. Op., 
tom. ii. col. 863. A. ed. Benedict.]— 
Occultari potest ad tempus veritas, 
vinci non potest—S. Aug. [Enarr ] 
in Psal. Ixi. [sect. 16. Op., tom. iv. 
par. 1. col. 599. G. ed. Benedict.] 

ὁ Lib. iy. De Rom. Pont. ὁ. 4. 
sect. 1. (Secunda Propositio: Non 
solum Pontifex Romanus] non potest 
errare in fide, sed neque Romana par- 
ticularis Ecclesia. [Est autem obser- 


judiciali: id est, dum judicat et definit 
queestionem fidei. At Ecclesia Romana, 
id est, populus et clerus Romanus, non 
potest errare errore personali, ita ut 
omnes omnino errent, et nulli sint in 
Romana Ecclesia fideles, pontifici ad- 
heerentes. Tametsi enim unusquisque 
seorsim errare potest, tamen id fieri 
non potest, ut omnes errent simul, et 
tota Romana Ecclesia apostatica effi- 
ciatur. —Bellarmin. Op., tom. i. col. 
811, 812. ed. Colon. 1620.] 

‘ Tbid. sect. 2. [Observandum est 
preeterea, Ecclesiam Romanam non 


S. Cyprian’s Testimony examined. 


(1.) The first, 5. Cyprian, whose words are, “That the Skrcrrox 


Romans are such, as to whom perfidia cannot have access.” 
Now, perfidia can hardly stand for error in faith, or for mis- 
belief; but it properly signifies malicious falsehood in matter 
of trust and action; not error in faith, but in fact, against 
the disciphne and government of the Church. And why 
may it not here have this meaning in 8. Cyprian ? 

IV.—For the story there it is this. In the year 255, 
there was a council in Carthage, in the cause of two schis- 
matics, Felicissimus and Novatian, about restoring of them 
to the communion of the Church which had lapsed, in time 
of danger, from Cliristianity to idolatry. Felicissimus would 
admit all, even without penance; and Novatian would admit 
none, no, not after penance. The Fathers, forty-two in 
number, went, as the truth led them, between both extremes. 
To this council came Privatus, a known heretic, but was not 
admitted, because he was formerly excommunicated, and 
often condemned. Hereupon he gathers his accomplices 
together, and chooses one Fortunatus, (who was formerly 
condemned, as well as himself,) Bishop of Carthage, and set 
him up against 8. Cyprian. This done, Felicissimus and his 
fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their 
own party, and pretend that twenty-five bishops concurred 
with them; and their desire was to be received into the 
communion of the Roman Church, and to have their new 
bishop acknowledged. Cornelius, then pope, though their 
haste had now prevented 8. Cyprian’s letters, having for- 
merly heard from him both of them and their schism in 
Africa, would neither hear them nor receive their letters. 
They grew insolent and furious, (the ordinary way that 


posse errare modo explicato, adhuc 
dupliciter posse intelligi. Uno modo, 
ut non possit errare, persistente Rome 
apostolica sede : secus autem, si sedes 
auferretur. Altero modo, ut simpli- 
citer non possit errare, vel deficere, 
quia nec sedes Apostolica possit un- 
quam Koma alio transferri. Et qui- 
dem secundum priorem sensum pro- 
positio nostra est verissima. | 

& [Post ista adhue insuper pseudo- 
episcopo sibi ab heereticis constituto, | 
navigare audent, [et] ad Petri Cathe- 
dram atque ad Heclesiam principalem, 
funde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. a 


schismaticis et profanis literas ferre ;] 
nec cogitare eos esse Romanos [quorum 
fides apostolo preedicante (Rom. i.) lau- 
data est,] ad quos perfidia habere non 
possit accessum.—S. Cypr.1. i. Ep. ὃ. 
| Hp. lv. ad Cornelium de Fortunato et 
Felicissimo, Op., p. 86. ed. Benedict. | 

h Bin. Concil. tom. i. p. 152. edit. 
Paris. 1636. [Concil. Roman. ii— 
Concil. ed. Labb. et Cossart., tom. i. 
600]. 715, A. B. C.] Baron. Annal. an. 
253, [num. 109,] 254, [num. 32—107,] 
255, (num. 1—30, tom. ii. ed. Rome, 
1594. | 


III. 


σι 


6 


S. Cyprian, as alleged for the Infallibility of Rome, 


Conrerencs Schismatics take). Upon this, Cornelius writes to 5S. 


WITH 
FISHER. 


Rom. i. 8. 


Cyprian; and S. Cyprian, in this epistle, gives Cornelius 
thanks for refusing these African fugitives, declares their 
schism and wickedness at large, and encourages him, and all 
bishops, to maintain the ecclesiastical discipline and cen- 
sures against any, the boldest, threatenings of wicked schis- 
matics. This is the story; and in this is the passage here 
urged by Bellarmine. Now I would fain know why perfidia, 
all circumstances considered, may not stand here in its 
proper sense, for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these 
men, having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude 
upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was wary enough 
not to be overreached by busy schismatics ? 

V.—(2.) Secondly, let it be granted that perfidia doth 
signify here, error in faith and doctrine. For I will not 
deny but that among the African writers, and especially 
S. Cyprian, it is sometimes so used; and therefore here, 
perhaps. But then this privilege, of not erring danger- 
ously in the faith, was not made over absolutely to the 
Romans, that are such by birth and dwelling only; but to 
the Romans, qua tales, as they were such as those first 
were, “whose faith was famous through the world,” and as 
long as they continued such; which, at that time, it seems 
they did. And so S. Cyprian’s words seem to import, eos 
esse Romanos, that the Romans then, under Pope Cornelius, 
were such as the apostle spake of, and therefore to whom, 
at that time, (or any time, they still remaining such,) per- 
fidious misbelief could not be welcome; or rather, indeed, 
perfidious misbelievers or schismatics could not be welcome. 
For this very phrase, perfidia non potest habere accessum, 
directs us to understand the word in a concrete sense : 
“perfidiousness could not get access ;” that is, such perfidious 
persons, excommunicated out of other Churches, were not 
likely to get access at Rome, or to find admittance into their 
communion. It is but a metonymy of speech, the adjunct 
for the subject ; a thing very usual even in elegant ‘authors, 


ΡΟΝ ποτ οὐδ ι ei Ego tibiistam Catilin. Orat. ii. sect. 25. (al. 11.)]— 


Scelestam,sce/ws,linguamabscindam. ....... latuit plebeio tectus amictu 
—Plaut. Amphit. [act. ii.sc.1.v.6.J— Omnis honos: nullos comitata est 
Ex πᾶς enim parte pudor pugnat, purpura fasces. 


illine petulantia, &c.—Cic. [in L. —Lucan. [de Bell. Civil.] lib. ii. [18.] 


examined, and explained. 


and much more in later times, as in 8. Cyprian’s, when the 
Latin language was grown rougher. Now, if it be thus 
understood, I say, in the concrete, then it is plain, that 
S. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the 
Romans from possibility of error, but to brand his adversa- 
ries with a title due to their merit, calling them perfidious, 
that is, such as had betrayed or perverted the faith. Neither 
can we lose by this construction, as will appear at after. 
VI.—(8.) But thirdly, when all is done, what if it be no 
more than a rhetorical excess of speech; perfidia non potest, 
for non facile potest ; it “cannot,” that is, “it cannot easily ?” 
Or what if 5. Cyprian do but laudando precipere, by com- 
mending* them to be such, instruct them that such indeed 
they ought to be, to whom perfidiousness should not get 
access? Men are very bountiful of their compliments some- 
times. Synesius,! writing to Theophilus of Alexandria, 
begins thus: γὼ καὶ βούλομαι, καὶ ἀνάγκη μοι θεία, 
[νόμον ἡγεῖσθαι τοῦτο 6 τι ἂν ἐκεῖνος ὁ θρόνος θεσπίση"] 
“Ἱ both will, and a divine necessity lies upon me, to esteem it 
a law, whatsoever that throne,” (meaning his of Alexandria,) 
“shall determine.” Nay, the word is θεσπίζειν, and that sig- 
nifies to determine like an oracle, or as in God’s stead. Now, 
T hope you will say, this is not to be taken dogmatically ; it 
is but the epistler’s courtesy only. And why not the like 
here? For the haste which these schismatics made to 
Rome prevented 8. Cyprian’s letters; yet Cornelius, very 
careful of both the truth and peace of the Church, would 
neither hear them, nor receive their letters, till ™he had 
written to S. Cyprian. Now this epistle is 8. Cyprian’s 
answer to Cornelius, in which he informs him of the whole 
truth; and withal gives him thanks for refusing to hear these 
African fugitives. In which fair way of returning his thanks, 
if he make an honourable mention of the Romans and their 


kK Nee cogitare eos esse Romanos, 
quorum fides apostolo praedicante, ὅσο. 
[v. supra, p. 5, note 8.1 

1 Hpist. 67. [ad Theophilum Alex- 
andr. Synesii Episcop. Cyrenens. Op., 
p. 208. A. (ad calcem Op., ὃ. Cyril. 
Hierosol.) ed. Dionys. Petay. Paris. 
1640.] 

m Forso Ὁ. Cyprian begins his epis- 
tle to Cornelius. Legi literas tuas, 


frater [carissime, quas per Saturum 
fratrem nostrum acolythum misisti, et 
dilectionis fraterne et ecclesiastice 
discipline et sacerdotalis censure satis 
plenas.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lv. ad Cor- 
nelium, Op., p. 79. ed. Benedict.| And 
after: Sed enim lecta alia tua epistola, 
frater, &c.—S. Cypr. lib. i. Epist. 3. 
[Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, Op., p. 80. ] 


SECTION 
1. 


7 


8 S. Cyprian alleged against the Infallibility of Rome. 


Coyrerence faith, with a little dash of rhetoric, even to a non potest for a 
Feurr, 20n facile potest, it is no great wonder. 

a VII.—But, take which answer you will of the three, this 
is plain, that S. Cyprian had no meaning to assert the 
unerring infallibility of either Pope or Church of Rome. 
For this is more than manifest by the contestation which 
after happened between 8. Cyprian and Pope Stephen, about 
the rebaptization of those that were baptized by heretics ; 
for he saith" expressly, that “Pope Stephen did then not only 
maintain an error, but the very cause of heretics, and that 
against Christians and the very Church of God.” And after 
this he chargeth him with obstinacy and presumption.® I 
hope this is plain enough to show, that S. Cyprian had no 
great opinion of the Roman infallibility: or if he had it 
when he writ to Cornelius, certainly he had changed it when 
he wrote against Stephen. But I think it was no change ; and 
that, when he wrote to Cornelius, it was rhetoric, and no more. 

VIII.—Now, if any man shall say, that, in this point of 
rebaptization, 8. Cyprian himself was in the wrong opinion, 
and Pope Stephen in the right, I easily grant that; but yet 
that error of his takes not off his judgment, what he thought 
of the Papal or Roman infallibility im those times. For 
though afterwards ? S. Cyprian’s opinion was condemned in 
a council at Rome under Cornelius, and after that by Pope 





" [Cyprianus Pompeio fratri salu- 
tem. Quanquam plene ea quee de heere- 
ticis baptizandis dicenda sunt com- 
plexi sumus in Epistolis, quarum ad 
te exempla transmisimus, frater caris- 
sime, tamen quia desiderasti in noti- 
tiam tuam perferri quid mihi ad li- 
teras nostras] Stephanus frater noster 
[rescripserit, misi tibi rescripti ejus 
exemplum: quo lecto, magis ac magis 
ejus errorem denotabis, qui] hzreti- 
corum causam contra Christianos et 
contra ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur. 
—S. Cypr. ad Pompeium contra Epist. 
Steph, edit. per Erasmum, Basil. p. 327. 
[Epist. lxxiv. p.138.Op., ed. Benedict, ] 

® [Cum vero nulla omnino heeresis, 
sed neque aliquod schisma habere 
salutaris baptismi  sanctificationem 
foris possit, cur in tantum] Stephani 
fratris nostri obstinatio dura [prorupit, 
ut etiam de Marcionis baptismo, item 
Valentini et Apclletis, et caterorum 
blasphemantium in Deum patrem, con- 


tendat filios Deo nasci?—Ibid. p. 140.] 
And it would be marked by the 
Jesuit and his A.C., that still it is 
Stephani fratris nostri, and not capi- 
lis, or summi pastoris nostri. 

P Caranza in Concil. Carthag. sub 
Cornel. fine. [Cyprianus Carthaginen- 
sis dixit: Censeo secundum Evangeli- 
cam et Apostolicam contestationem, 
adversarios Christi et Antichristos ap- 
pellatos, quandoad Eeclesiam venerint, 
unico Ecclesize baptismo baptizandos 
esse, ut possint fieri de adversariis 
amici, et de Antichristis Christiani.— 
Revocata sunt hee per Cornelium in 
sacerdotali concilio Rome, et per Ste- 
phanum Papam. — Caranzze Summ. 
Concil. p. 38. ed. Duaci, 1679. This 
Council, (the third of those held at 
Carthage and not received by the 
Church,) is of the date a.p. 258, (al. 
256,) during the pontificate of Pope 
S. Stephen 1., not S. Cornelius.—Cf. 
Concil., tom. i. col. 796. C.] 


S. Jerome’s Testimony examined. 


Stephen, and after both in the first Council of Carthage,1 
yet uo one word is there in that council which mentions this 
as an error, that he thought Pope Stephen might err in the 
faith, while he proclaimed he did so. In which, though the 
particular censure which he passed on Pope Stephen was 
erroneous, for Stephen erred not in that, yet the general 
which results from it, namely, that for all his bemg in the 
popedom, he might err, is most true. 

IX.—2. The second Father which Bellarmine cites, is 
S. Jerome :* his words are: “The Roman faith commended 
by the apostle, admits not such prestigias, ‘ deceits and 
delusions,’ into it, though an angel should preach it otherwise 
than it was preached at first, (and) bemg armed and fenced 
by 5. Paul’s authority, cannot be changed.” Where, first, I 
will not doubt but that 8. Jerome speaks here of the faith ; 
for the presiigie here mentioned are afterwards more plainly 
expressed : for he tells us after,s “That the Bishop of Rome 
had sent letters into the East, and charged heresy upon 
Ruffinus.” And farther, “that Origen’s books περὶ ἀρχῶν 
were translated by him, and delivered to the simple people 
of the Church of Rome, that by his means they might lose 
the verity of the faith, which they had learned from the 
apostle.” Therefore the prestigie before mentioned, were the 


4 Can. 1. [This council, held during 
the pontificate of Popes. Julius 1.—not 
S. Sylvester I., as Caranza incorrectly 
states—by Gratus, Archbishop of Car- 
thage, a.p. 348, was not strictly the 
first Council of Carthage, for several 
had been held there under S Cyprian; 
but it is styled the first Council of 
Carthage, “quia inter orthodoxa et ap- 
probata Concilia Carthagine habita, 
ea que etiamnum extant, primum sit 
et antiquissimum.” (Bin. not. Concil., 
tom. ii. col. 719.) Can. 1.—Ergo, si 
vobis placet, consideremus primum 
titulum rebaptizationis. Unde sancti- 
tatem vestram postulo, ut meutis 
vestre placita producatis ad descen- 
dentem in aquam, et interrogatum in 
Trinitate secundum evangelii fidem et 
apostolorum doctrinam, et confessum 
bonam conscientiam in Deum, de resur- 
rectione Jesu Christi, si liceat iterum 
interrogari in eadem fide, et in aqua 
iterum intingi. Universi Episcopi 
dixerunt: Absit, absit. Illicitas esse 
saucimus rebaptizationes, et satis esse 


alienum a sincera fide et catholica 
disciplina.—Concil., tom. ii. col. 714. 
IN ABS 


τ Attamen scito Romanam fidem, 
Apostolica voce laudatam, istiusmodi 
prestigias non recipere, etiam st 
Angelus aliter annunciet, quam semel 
preedicatum est, Pauli auctoritate 
munitam non posse mutari. — ὃ. 
Hieron, lib. iii. Apol. contra Ruffi- 
num, tom. ii. fol. 84. K.ed. Paris. 1534. 
fady. Rufin. lib. iii. Op., tom. iv. par. 
ii. col. 449. ed. Benedict.] Peradven- 
ture it is here to be read εἰ jam si, 
for so the place is more plain, and 
more strong; but the answer is the 
same. 

5. Deinde, ut epistolas contra te ad 
Orientem mitteret, et cauterium tibi 
heereseos, [dum nescis,| inureret ; di- 
ceretque libros Origenis περὶ ἀρχῶν, a 
te translatos, et simplici Romanz 
Keclesize plebi traditos, ut fidei veri- 
tatem quam ab Apostolo didicerant, 
per te perderent.—S. Hieron. ibid. fol. 
85. Κα. (Ibid. col. 457.] 


9 


SEction 
Te 


10 


S. Jerome as alleged for the Infallibility of Rome. 


Conrrrence cunning illusions of Ruffinus, putting Origen’s book under 


WITH 
FISHER. 





the martyr Pamphilus’ name, that so he might bring in 
heresy the more cunningly under a name of credit, and the 
more easily pervert the people’s faith. So, of the faith 
he speaks. And secondly, I shall as easily confess that 
S. Jerome’s speech is most true, but I cannot admit the 
Cardinal’s sense of it: for he imposes upon the word fides. 
For by Romana fides, the Roman faith, he will understand 
the particular Church of Rome; which is as much as to 
say, Romanos fideles, the faithful of that Church; and that 
no wily delusions, or cozenage in matter of faith, can be 
imposed upon them. Now, hereupon I return to that of 
S. Cyprian: if fides Romana must signify fideles Romanos, 
why may not perfidia before signify perfidos ? especially since 
these two words are commonly used by these writers, as 
terms opposite ; and therefore, by the law of opposition, 
may interpret each other proportionably. So with these 
great masters—with whom it is almost grown to be, quod 
volumus, rectum est, what we please, shall be the author’s 
meaning—yperfidia must signify absolutely error in faith, or 
misbelief; but fides must relate to the persons, and signify 


τ [ταν ον et dolenter motus sum, 
fratres carissimi, quod cognoverim 
Fortunatianum quondam apud vos 
episcopum post grayem lapsum ruin 
suz pro integro nune agere velle et 
episcopatum sibi vindicare ccepisse. 
Que res contristavit me, primo 
propter ipsum, qui miser, vel diaboli 
tenebris in totum exccecatus, vel quo- 
rundam sacrilega persuasione decep- 
tus, cum debeat satisfacere et ad 
Dominum exorandum diebus ac nocti- 
bus lacrymis et orationibus et precibus 
incumbere, audet sibi adhue sacerdo- 
tium, quod prodidit, vindicare, quasi 
post aras diaboli accedere ad altare 
Dei fas sit, aut non majorem in se 
iram et indignationem Domini in 
die judicii proyocet,] qui cum fidei 
[et virtutis] dux [fratribus] esse non 
potuerit, perfidie [et audacie et 
temeritatis magister] existat. — 8. 
Cyprian. lib. i. Epist. 7. [Epist. Lxiv. 
ad Epictetum, pp. 110,111.|—[ Unde et 
ipsam venisse perspicimus et credi- 
mus de Dei exploratione censuram, 
ne apud altare consistere et contrec- 
tare ulterius perseverarent pudorem 
incesti,| fidem perfidi, [religionem 


profani, divina terreni, sancta sacri- 
legi.} — Ibid. [p. 111.]— [Quanquam 
etsi aliquis ex talibus fuerit appre- 
hensus, non est quod sibi quasi in 
confessione nominis blandiatur, cum 
constet, si occisi ejusmodi extra eccle- 
siam fuerint, fidei coronam non esse, 
sed poenam potius esse perfidize.—S. 
Cyprian. Epist. lvii. ad Cornelium, Op., 
p. 95.—Nulla societas fidei et perfidize 
potest esse.—S. Cyprian. Epist. ly. ad 
Cornelium, Op., p. 89.]—Ex ovibus 
subito facti sunt vulpes, ex fidelibus 
perfidi.—S. Optatus, lib. vii. [lib. vi. 6. 8. 
De Schism. Donatist. Op., p. 100. ed. 
Dupin. 1700.]|—[Queeris a me, Utrum 
parentes baptizatis parvulis suis no- 
ceant, cum eos dzemoniorum sacrificiis 
sanare conantur. Et si non nocent], 
quomodo eis prosit cum baptizantur 
parentum fides, quorum eis non po- 
test obesse perfidia?—S. Aug. Epist. 
xxiii. [xeviii. Bonifacium, Op., tom. 
ii. col. 263. F. ed. Benedict.) — 
Quanto [ergo] potius fides aliena po- 
test consulere parvulo, cui sua perfidia 
{non potest imputari?]—S. Aug. lib. 
in. de lib: Arb: Ὁ. 1995 [00 Ὁ 
tom. i. col. 637. F. ed. Benedict. ] 


S. Jerome really supports the opposite view. 


11 


the faithful of the Roman Church. And now I conceive my  Sxerion 


answer will proceed with a great deal of reason. For Romana 
fides, “the Roman faith,” as it was commended by the apostle, 
of which 8. Jerome speaks, is one thing, and the particular 
Roman Church, of which the Cardinal speaks, is another. 
The faith indeed admits not prestigias, wily delusions, into 
it; if it did, it could not be “the whole and undefiled faith” 
of Christ, which they learned from the apostle ; and which is 
so fenced by apostolical authority as that it cannot be 
changed, though an angel should preach the contrary. But 
the particular Church of Rome hath admitted prestigias, 
divers crafty conveyances, into the faith, and is not fenced 
as the faith itself is: and therefore, though an angel cannot 
contrary that, yet the bad angel hath sowed tares in this. 
By which means Romana fides, though it be now the same 
it was for the words of the Creed, yet it is not the same for 
the sense of it, nor for the super and preter structures 
built upon it, or joined unto it. So the Roman faith, that 
is, the faith which S. Paul taught the Romans, and after 
commended in them, was all one with the Catholic faith of 
Christ. For 8. Paul taught no other than that one ; and this 
one can never be changed in or from itself by angel or 
devil. But in men’s hearts it may receive a change; and in 
particular churches it may receive a change; and in the 
particular Church of Rome it hath received a change. And 
ye see, S. Jerome himself confesses, that the Pope himself 
was afraid ne perderent, lest by this art of Ruffinus, “ the 
people might lose the verity of the faith.’ Now that which 
can be lost, can be changed; for usually habits begin to 
alter, before they be quite lost. And that which may be lost 
among the people, may be lost among the bishops, and the 
rest of the clergy too, if they look not to it; as it seems they 
after did not at Rome, though then they did. Nay, at this 
time the whole Roman Church was in danger enough to 
swallow Origen’s book, and all the errors in it, coming under 
the name of Pamphilus ; and so 8S. Jerome himself expressly, 
and close upon the place cited by Bellarmine. For he 
desires Ruffinus to “change the title of the book,” * that error 

« Ne fidei veritatem quam ab Apos- x [Ergo frater, sive a te falsatus est 


tolo didicerant, per te perderent.—[S. liber, ut multi putant; sive ab altero, 
Hieron.]| ut sup. [p. 9. note"). ut forsitan persuadere conaberis, et 


ΠῚ. 


12 


~ 


CoNnFrERENCE 
WITH 
FisHEr. 


(decet sem- 
per, it be- 
comes that 
great city 

always to 

Maver ues... 
Editt. 1663 
and 1686.] 


S. Greg. Nazianzen alleged against the Infallibility of Rome. 


may not be spread under the specious name of Pamphilus, 
“and so to free from danger the Roman simplicity.” Where, 
by the way, Roman unerring power now challenged, and 
Roman simplicity then feared, agree not very well together. 
X.—3. The third Fathcr alleged by Bellarmine, is S. 
Gregory Nazianzen.’ And his words are, “That ancient 
Rome from of old hath the right faith, and always holds it, 
as becomes the city which is governess over the whole world, 
to have an entire faith in and concerning God.” Now 
certainly it became that city very well, to keep the faith 
sound and entire. And having the government of a great 
part of the world then im her power, it became her so much 
the more, as her example thereby was the greater. And in 
S. Gregory Nazianzen’s time, Rome did certainly hold both 
rectam et integram fidem, the right and the whole entire 
faith of Christ. But there is nor promise nor prophecy in 
S. Gregory, that Rome shall ever so do. For his words are 
plain; semper decet, “it always becomes” that great city to 
have, and to hold too, integram fidem, “the entire faith.” But 
at the other semper, it 15 retinet,’ that city from of old “holds” 
the right faith yet; but he saith not retinebit semper, that the 


city of Rome “shall retain it ever,’ 
ever retain the empire of the world. 


> no more than it shall 
Now it must be 


assured that it shall ever hold the entire faith of Christ, 
before we can be assured that that particular Church can 


never err, or be infallible. 


XI.—Besides these, the Cardinal names* Cyrillus and 


temere credidisti, heeretici hominis 
σύνταγμα esse martyris, | muta titulum, 
et Romanam simplicitatem tanto peri- 
culo libera —{S. Hieron. } [bid. fol. 84. 
K. [col. 449. ] 

y Vetus Roma ab antiquis tempo- 
ribus habet rectam fidem, et semper 
eam retinet, sicut decet urbem, que 
toti orbi preesidet, semper de Deo 
integram fidem habere.—Greg. Naz. in 
Carmine de Vita Sua, ante medium, 
p. 9. ed. Paris. 1609. 

[Δύω μὲν οὐ δέδωκεν ἡλίους φύσις, 
Δισσὰς δὲ Ῥώμας, τῆς ὕλης οἰκουμένης 
Λαμπτῆρας, ἀρχαῖόν τε καὶ νέον κράτος, 
Τόσον διαφέροντας ἀλλήλων, ὅσον 

Τὴν μὲν προλάμπειν ἡλίου, τὴν δ᾽ ἑσπέρας" 
Κάλλει δὲ κάλλος ἀντανίσχειν συζύγως. 
Τούτων δὲ πίστις, ἡ μὲν ἣν ἐκ πλείονος, 
Καὶ νῦν ἔτ᾽ ἔστιν εὔδρομος, τὴν ἑσπέραν 
Πᾶσαν δέουσα τῷ σωτηρίῳ λόγῳ, 





Καθὼς δίκαιον τὴν προέδμον τῶν ὅλων, 
“Ὅλην σέβουσαν τὴν Θεοῦ συμφωνίαν" 
‘HS ἣν τοπρόσθεν ὀρθόπους, νῦν δ᾽ οὐκέτι. 
k.T.A. 562—573, Op., tom. ii. p. 704. 
ed. Paris. 1840.] 

“The words in the Greek are, 7 
μὲν ἦν ex πλείονος, καὶ νῦν ἔτ᾽ ἔστιν 
εὔδρομος. Heee quidem fuit diu, et 
nune adhue est rectigrada: ἔστιν, est ; 
so S. Gregory says, but of an ἔσται, or a 
retinebit, he says nothing.! 

« [Nam auctores citati, ut Lucius et 
Felix papee et martyres ; Agatho et Ni- 
colaus papze et confessores ; item Cyril- 
lus et Ruffinus, non solum pontificem, 
sed etiam Ecclesiam Romanam, asserue- 
runt non posse errare.— Bellarmin. de 








1[....nor is semper in the text 
of Nazianzen. — Editt. 1663 and 
1686.] 


S. Cyril of Alex. alleged against the Infallibility of Rome. 


Ruffinus, but he neither tells us where, nor cites their words. 
Yet I think I have found the most pregnant place in ὅδ. 
Cyril,” and that makes clearly against him. For I find 
expressly these three things: First, that the Church is 
inexpugnable, and that “the gates of hell shall never prevail 
against it,” but thatit shall in perpetuwm manere, “remain for 
ever.” And this all Protestants grant. But this, that it 
shall not fall away, doth not secure it from all kinds of error. 
Secondly, Bellarmine quotes 8. Cyril for the particular 
Roman Church; and 8. Cyril speaks not of the Roman at 
all, but of the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church. 
Thirdly, that the foundation and firmness, which the Church 
of Christ hath, is placed not in, or upon, the person,® much 
less the successor, of S. Peter; but upon the faith,° which by 
God’s Spirit in him, he so firmly possessed: which is the 
common received opinion both of the ancient Fathers and 


the Protestants. 


“Upon this rock,” that is, upon this faith, 
“ will I build my Church.” 


So here is all the good he 


hath gotten by S. Cyril, unless he can cite some other place 
of 58. Cyril, which I believe he cannot. 

XII.—And for Ruffinus, the place which Bellarmine aims 
at, is in his Exposition upon the Creed; and is quoted in 


Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. ¢. 4. Op., tom. i. 
col. 812. B.] 

b Petram opinor per agnomina- 
tionem nihil aliud, quam inconcussam 
et firmissimam discipuli fidem vocavit. 
In qua, Ecclesia Christi ita fundata et 
firmata esset, ut non laberetur, et esset 
inexpugnabilis inferorum portis, in 
perpetuum manens.—S. Cyril. Alex. 
Dial. de Trin. lib. iv. p. 278. Paris. 
an. 1604. [Πέτραν οἶμαι παρωνύμως, 
ἕτερον οὐδὲν ἢ τὴν ἀκατάσειστον καὶ 
ἑδραιοτάτον τοῦ μαθητοῦ πίστιν ἀπο- 


2 


καλῶν, ἐφ᾽ 7 καὶ ἀδιαπτώτως ἐρήρεισταί 
τε καὶ διαπέπηγεν ἡ ἐκκλησία Χριστοῦ, 
καὶ αὐταῖς ἀνάλωτος ταῖς ᾷἄδου πύλαις 
εἰσαεὶ Stauévovoa.— De Sancta Trini- 
tate, Dialog. iv. Op., tom. v. pp. 507. 
E 508. A. ed. Paris. 1638.] 

© Ht ego dico tibt) hoe est, tus con- 
fessioni, quai mihi dixisti, Tu es 
Christus, [Vicissitudinem et premium 
reddo, et dico, dicendoque facio, quo- 
niam meum dixisse fecisse est, Quia 
tu es Petrus, id est, principalis; et 
in fide firmus. Vel Petrus, id est, 
vere petre, qui es Christi dignus 
confessor. Sic ergo imponitur ei 





novum nomen propter novam con- 
fessionem. Et dicitur Petrus, qui 
Symon vocabatur.] Ht super hanc 
petrand) hoe est, fidei hujus firmitatem 
et fundamentum. Vel, super hance 
petram quam confessus es, hoc est, 
super Meipsum ipsum lapidem angula- 
rem, [{montem altissimum de quo ait 
apostolus, Fundamentum aliud nemo 
potest ponere, preter id quod positum 


est, quod est Christus Jesus...... In 
hac igitur fide, quod Jesus est 
Christus, filius Dei vivi, fundatur 


atque salvatur ecclesia. ]— Dion[ysii] 
Carthus[iani in quatuor HEvangelia 
Enarrationes, art. xxix.] in ὃ. Matth. 
xvi, 18. [fol. lv. C. ed. Paris. 1542. 
—Dionysius a Rickel, cognomento de 
Leewis, natione Belga...... doctor 
ecstaticus dictus .... anno eetatis suze 
21, Carthusianis nomen dedit.... cla- 
ruit anno 1450, Cardinalis Cusani ami- 
CUB clots vir in divinis scripturis, ait 
Trithemius, studiosissimus .... inge- 
nio subtilis, sermone scholasticus.— 
Henr. Wharton, sub voce. in append. 
ad Cavei Histor. Literar. Sec. Synod. 
tom. ii. (app.) p. 166.] 


13 


SECTION 
Ne 


S. Matt. 
ΧΥΪ. 18, 


14 


Ruffinus alleged against the Infallibility of Rome. 


Coxrzrence part the chapter before.t But when all his words shall be 


WITH 
FisHeEr. 


laid together, they will make no more for Bellarmine and 
his cause, than the former places have done. Ruffinus’ 
words then run thus:° “ Before I come to the words of the 
Creed, this I think fit to warn you of:—That in divers 
Churches some things are found added to the words (of the 
Creed). But in the Church of the city of Rome, this is not 
found done: and as I think, it is for that no heresy did 
take its rise or beginning there; and for that the old custom 
is there observed, namely, that they which are to receive the 
grace of baptism do publicly repeat the Creed in the hearing 
of the people, who would not admit such additions. But in 
other places, as far as I can understand, by reason of some 
heretics, some things were added, but such as were to ex- 
clude the sense of their novel doctrine.” Now these words 
make little for Bellarmine, who cites them, and much against 
Ruffinus that uttered them. They make little for Bellarmine. 
First, because, suppose Ruffinus’ speech to be true, yet 
this will never follow. In Ruffinus’ time, no heresy had 
taken its beginning at Rome; therefore no heresy hath had 
rooting there so many hundred years since. Secondly, 
Bellarmine takes upon him there to prove, that the particular 
Church of Rome cannot err. Now neither can this be con- 
cluded out of Ruffinus’ words: First, because, as I said 
before, to argue from non sumpsit to ergo sumere non potest, 
—no heresy hath yet begun there, therefore none can begin 
there, or spring thence,—is an argument drawn αὖ actu ad 


ἃ Bellar. lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. cap. 
111. sect. penult. {In primis constat, 
omnes patriarchales sedes defecisse a 
fide: ita ut heeretici, et heresim pro- 
fitentes ac docentes, in illis sederint, 
excepta Romana sede.... Nihil tale 
de Romana Ecclesia potest ostendi: 
ex quo apparet, revera pro ipsa 
Dominum orasse, ne deficeret fides 
ejus. Unde Ruffinus in expositione 
Symboli: In Ecclesia, inquit, urbis 
Rome, neque heeresis ulla sumpsit 
exordium, et mos ibi servatur anti- 
quus.—Op., tom. i. col. 811. C.] 

ὁ Tilud non importune commonen- 
dum puto, quod in diversis ecclesiis 
aliqua in his verbis inveniuntur 
adjecta. In ecclesia tamen urbis 
Rome hoe non deprehenditur factum : 


{quod ego] pro eo [esse] arbitror, 
quod neque heeresis ulla illic sumpsit 
exordium, et mos ibi servatur anti- 
quus, eos qui gratiam baptismi sus- 
cepturi sunt, publice, id est, fidelium 
populo audiente, symbolum reddere, 
et utique adjectionem unius saltem 
sermonis, eorum qui precesserunt in 
fide non admittit auditus. In ceteris 
autem locis, quantum intelligi datur, 
propter nonnullos heereticos addita 
quedam videntur, per que novelle 
doctrines sensus crederetur excludi, 
&c.—Ruffin. in Exposit. Symbol. (ut 
habetur inter Opera S. Cypriani,) 
Preefat. Expos. [Opusc. vulgo 5. Cypr. 
adseript. col. excix. ad caleem ed. 
Benedict. | 


Some Heresies had their origin at Rome. 


15 


potentiam negative, from the act to the power of being, which — gxcrton 


every novice in learning can tell proceeds not negatively. And 
common reason tells every man, it 1s no consequence to say, 
Such a thing is not, or hath not been, therefore it cannot be. 
Secondly, because though it were true, that no heresy at all 
did ever take its beginning at Rome, yet that can never prove 
that the particular Church of Rome can never err, (which is 
the thing in question.) For suppose that no heresy did ever 
begin there, yet if any, that began elsewhere, were admitted 
into that Church, it is as full a proof that that Church 
can err, as if the heresy had been hatched in that nest. For 
that Church errs which admits a heresy into it, as well as 
that which broaches it. Now, Ruffinus says no more of the 
Roman Church than non sumpsit exordium, “no heresy took 
its beginning there;” but that denies not, but that some 
heretical taint might get im there. And it is more than 
manifest, that the most famous heresies in their several 
times made their abode even at Rome. And it is observ- 
able too, that Bellarmine cites no more of Ruffinus’ words 
than these: In ecclesia urbis Rome neque heresis ulla 
sumpsit exordium, et mos δὲ servatur antiguus, as if this 
were an entire speech ; whereas it comes in but as a reason 
given of the speech precedent ; and as if Ruffinus made the 
Church of Rome the great observer of the customs of the 
Church ; whereas he speaks but of one particular custom of 
reciting the Creed before baptism. But after all this, I pray, 
Did no heresy ever begin at Rome ? Where did Novatianism 
begin? At Rome, sure. For Baronius,° Pamelius,4 and 
Petavius,® do all dispute the point, whether that sect was 
denominated from Novatianus the Roman priest, or Novatus 


f Baron. tom. ii. an. 254. num. mane presbyter..... Hic autem pri- 


62. [Sed de iis illud in primis com- 
monendum, similitudine nominum 
factum, ut nonnulli antiqui scrip- 
tores alterum pro altero interdum 
usurparint, et alii unum eundemque 
Novatum cum Novatiano conflave- 
TANG ΠΣ porro Novatianos a No- 
vatiano ut principaliori denominatos, 
constat ex his que Cyprianus (epist. 
xxiii.) seribitad Fabianum, ubieosdem 
quos dicimus Novatianos, a Novatiano 
derivans, Novatianenses appellat.| 

gs Pamel. in Cyprian. Epist. xli. 
{Erat hie Novatianus Ecclesiz Ro- 


mum in ecclesia schisma concitavit. 
.... Husebius et Nicephorus..... 
uterque, et sic etiam Socrates, vicini- 
tate nominum (se. Novatiani et No- 
vati) falsi, Novatum illum vocant non 
recte.—In Hpist. xli. ad Cornelium, 
p. 80. ed. Paris. 1616, et p. 55. ed. 
Benedict. ] et lxxiii. [Hine etiam patet 
a Novatiano dictos illos heereticos, non 
a Novato. —Id. in Epist. Ixxiii. ad 
Jubaianum, Op., p. 188, et p. 129. 
ed. Benedict. | 

h Petavius in Epiphan. Heeres. lix. 
{sc. Noyatianorum. In quo plerosque 


ΠΙ. 


16 


Corrmrence the African bishop; and they conclude for Novatian. 


WITH 


Fisuer. 


Heresies of Novatian and Florinus originated at Rome. 


He 
then that gave that name is in all right the founder, and 
Rome the nest, of that heresy: and there it continued 
with a succession’ of bishops from Cornelius to Celestine, 
which is near upon two hundred years. Nay, could Ruffinus 
himself be ignorant that some heresy began at Rome? No, 
sure. For in this I must challenge him either for his weak 
memory or his wilful error; for Ruffinus had not only read 
Eusebius’ history, but had been at the pains to translate him. 
Now, Eusebius? says plainly, that “some heretics spread 
their venom in Asia, some in Phrygia, and others grew at 
Rome, and Florinus was the ringleader of them.” And more 
clearly after, “TIrenzeus” saith he, “ directed divers epistles 
against this Florinus, and his fellow Blastus, and condemns 
them of such heresies as threw them and their followers 
into great impiety, &c.; those at Rome corrupting the sound 


veterum patrum, ac potissimum Gree- 
corum, aberrasse constat: qui duos 
sectee hujus architectos in unum mis- 
cent similitudine nominum decepti, 
Novatum et Novatianum...... Sic 
igitur Novatianorum secta...... a 
posteriore preesertim, hoe est Nova- 
tiano, magnum incrementum accepit. 
—Petav. Animad. in Epiph. Heeres. 
tom. ii. p. 226. ed. Paris. 1622.] 

i Onuph. in Notis ad Plat. in vita 
Cornelii. [Post 5. Fabiani obitum et 
Cornelii electionem, primum in Eccle- 
sia Romana schisma fuisse constat. No- 
vatianus enim quidam presbyterS.R.E. 
ambitionis spiritu inflatus.... ponti- 
ficatum contra Cornelium Rome 
assumpsit ....aquo heeresis Novatia- 
norum manavit.... Hujus Novatiani 
in episcopatu successores Rome us- 
que ad Cviestini Papz pontificatum 
permanserunt. — Onuphr. in Platin. 
Vit. Pontific. p. 33. ed. Colon. 1568.] 

k Heeretici alii in morem venena- 
torum serpentum in Asiam et Phry- 
giam irrepserunt, of δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκ- 
μαζον, quorum Dux Florinus.—Euseb. 
lib. v. cap. 14. [et 15. ap. Hist. Eccl. 
Script. ed. Reading, tom. i. p. 227. 
Μισόκαλός ye μὲν ἐς τὰ μάλιστα καὶ 
φιλοπόνηρος ὧν ὁ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ 
Θεοῦ πολέμιος, μηδένα τε μηδαμῶς THs 
κατὰ τῶν ἀν: ᾿νώπων ἐπιβουλῆς ἀπολιπὼν 
τρόπον, αἱρέσεις ξένας αὖθις ἐπιφύεσθαι 
κατὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐνήργει" ὧν οἱ μὲν 
ἰοβόλων δίκην ἑρπετῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Ασίας καὶ 
Φρυγίας εἷρπον τὸν μὲν παράκλητον 


Μοντανὸν, τὰς δὲ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γυναῖκας, 
Πρίσκιλλαν καὶ Μαξιμίλλων, ὡς ἂν 
τοῦ Μοντανοῦ προφήτιδας γεγονυίας 
αὐχοῦντες. Οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκμαζον, 
ὧν ἡγεῖτο Φλωρῖνος, πρεσβυτερίου τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας ἀποπεσών. Βλάστος τε σὺν 
τούτῳ παραπλησίῳ πτώματι κατεσχημέ- 
vos’ ot καὶ πλείους τῆς ἐκκλησίας» 
περίελκοντες, ἐπὶ τὸ σφῶν ὑπῆγον 
βούλημα: θάτερος ἰδίως περὶ τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν νεωτερίζειν πειρώμενος.) And 
in Ruffinus’ translation, ¢. 15. [Sed 
in urbe Rome Florinus quidam gra- 
du presbyteri de ecclesia lapsus una 
cum Blasto socio criminis et furoris, 
plurimos de ecclesia in suum _ barath- 
rum deducebant nova adversum veri- 
tatem figmenta machinantes. — p. 
115. B. Euseb. Ruffino interpret. 
apud Autor. Hist. LHcclesiast. ed. 
Frobenii, Basil. 1539. ] And then after- 
wards, ο. 19 and 20. ἐξ ἐναντίας δὲ trav 
ἐπὶ Ρώμης τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας θεσμὸν 
παραχαραττόντων, [Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους 
ἐπιστολὰς συντάττει" τὴν μὲν ἐπιγράψας, 
πρὺς Βλάστον περὶ ἡ σχίσματος" τὴν δὲ πρὸς 
Φλωρῖνον περὶ μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ 
εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν" ταύτης 
γάρ τοι τῆς “γνώμης οὗτος ἐδόκει 
προασπίζειν" δι ὃν αὖθις ὑποσυρόμενον 
τῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάνῃ, κ. τ. λ.--- 
Euseb. Jbid. p. 237. ed. Reading.] Now 
this Blastus taught! that God was the 
author of sin. 





1 [Now these taught.... Editt. 1663 


and 1686.] 


Ruffinus on the Canon of Scripture against Rome. 


doctrine of the Church. Therefore most manifest it is, that 
some heresy had its rise and beginning at Rome. But to 
leave this shp of Ruffinus, most evident it is, that Ruffinus 
neither did nor could account the particular Church of Rome 
infallible ; for if he had esteemed so of it, he would not have 
dissented from it in so main a point as is the canon of the 
Scripture, as he plainly doth; for, reckoning! up the canonical 
books, he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church. 
Therefore, either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome 
was infallible, or else the Church of Rome at this day 
reckons up more books within the canon than heretofore she 
did. If she do, then she is changed in a main point of faith, 
the canon of Scripture, and is absolutely convinced not to be 
infallible ; for if she were right in her reckoning then, she is 
wrong now; and if she be right now, she was wrong then; 
and if she do not reckon more now than she did when 
Ruffinus lived, then he reckons fewer than she, and so 
dissents from her ; which doubtless he durst- not have done, 


had he thought her judgment infallible. 


Yea, and he sets 


this mark upon his dissent besides," that he reckons up the 


1 Ruff. in Exposit. Symbol. p. 
188. [sect. 37, 38. col. eexxiv. ad cal- 
cem 8. Cyprian. ed. Benedict. Itaque 
veteris instrumenti primo omnium 
Moysi quingue libri sunt traditi, 
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 
Deuteronomium. Post hos Jesu Nave, 
et Judicum simul cum Ruth: quatuor 
post hee Regnorum libri, quos Hebrei 
duos numerant ; Paralipomenon, qui 
dierum dicitur liber; et Esdrze libri 
duo, qui apud illos singuli compu- 
tantur et Esther: Prophetarum vero 
Esaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel et Daniel : 
preeterea duodecim Prophetarum liber 
unus: Job quoque et Psalmi David 
singuli sunt libri: Salomonis vero 
tres Ecclesiis traditi, Proverbia, Eeccle- 
siastes, Cantica Canticorum. In his 
concluserunt librorum numerum 
veteris Testamenti. Novi vero, quatuor 
Evangelia, Matthei, Marci, Luce, 
Joannis : Actus Apostolorum, quos 
descripsit Lucas, Pauli Apostoli 
Epistolas quatuordecim, Petri Apos- 
toli Epistolas duas, Jacobi fratris 
Domini et Apostoli unam, Judz unam, 
Joannis tres, Apocalypsim Joannis. 
Hee sunt que Patres intra Canonem 
concluserunt ; ex quibus fidei nostrze 
assertiones constare yoluerunt. Scien- 


VOL, II.— LAUD, 


dum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt 
qui non Canonici, sed Eeclesiastici, a 
majoribus appellati sunt: ut est 
Sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, 
quee dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud 
Latinos hoe ipso generali vocabulo 
Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo voca- 
bulo non auctor libelli, sed seripturae 
qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem 
ordinis est libellus Tobie, et Judith, 
et Machabzorum libri. In Novo 
vero Testamento libellus qui dicitur 
Pastoris, sive Hermetis, qui appellatur 
duz viz, vel judicium Petri; que 
omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis yolue- 
runt, non tamen proferri ad auctori- 
tatem ex his fidei confirmandam. 
Ceeteras vero Scripturas apocryphas 
nominarunt, quas in ecclesiis legi 
noluerunt.|—In which reckoning he 
plainly agrees with the Chureh of 
England, Art. vi. 

[Ht ideo que sunt] novi ac veteris 
Testamenti [instrumenti] volumina, 
[quee secundum majorum traditionem 
per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum inspirata 
creduntur, et Ecclesiis Christi tradita, 
competens videtur in hoe loco evi- 
denti numero,]| sicut ex Patrum mo- 
numentis accepimus, [designare.] — 
Ruffin. in Symb. p. 188. [sect. 36. 


Cc 


Τῇ 


SEctIon 
te 


18 Dilemma which Bellarmine’s Reference to Ruffinus involves. 


Conrerence hooks of the canon just so and no otherwise than as “he 
ia received them out of the monuments of the forefathers, and 
~~~ out of which the assertions of our faith are to be taken.” 

Last of all, had this place of Ruffinus any strength for the 
infallibility of the Church of Rome, yet there is very little 
reason that the pope and his clergy should take any benefit 
by it. For S. Jerome? tells us, That when Ruffinus was 
angry with him for an epistle which he writ not, he plainly 
sent him to the Bishop of Rome, and bade him expostulate 
with him for the contumely put upon him, in that he re- 
ceived not his exposition of the faith, which, said he, all 
Italy approved ; and in that he branded him also, dum 
nesciret, “behind his back,” with heresy. Now, if the pope 
which then was, rejected this exposition of the creed made 
by Ruffinus, and branded him besides with heresy, his 
sentence against Ruffinus was just, or unjust. If unjust, 
then the pope erred about @ matter of faith ; and so neither 
he nor the Church of Rome infallible. If just, then the 
Church of Rome labours to defend herself by his pen, which 
is judged heretical by herself. So, whether it were just or 
unjust, the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait, 
when she must beg help of him whom she branded with 
heresy, and out of that tract which she herself rejected; 
and so uphold her infallibility by the judgment of a man, 
who in her judgment had erred so foully. Nor may she by 
any law°® take benefit of a testimony which herself hath 
defamed and protested against. 


col. eexxiv.]—Et heee sunt que Patres  tibi hereseos, dum nescis, inureret.— 


intra Canonem concluserunt; et ex 
quibus fidei nostra assertiones con- 
stare voluerunt.—Ib. p.189. [ubisup.] 

ἢ Si [autem] Romani Episcopi est, 
stulte facis ab eo exemplar Epistole 
petere, cui missa non est: [et non ab 
illo qui miserit de oriente exspectare 
testimonium, cujus auctorem et tes- 
tem habeas in vicino.] Vade potius 
Romam, et prasens apud eum expos- 
tula, cur tibi et absenti et innocenti 
fecerit injuriam [contumeliam.] Pri- 
mum, ut non reciperet expositionem 
fidei tus, quam omnis, ut scribis, 
Italia comprobavit ; [et baculo tuarum 
uti noluerit literarum contra canes 
tuos.]_ Deinde, ut Epistolas contra te 
ad Orientem mitteret, et cauterium 


8. Hieron. Apol. iii. advers. Ruffin. fol. 
85. K. [Op., tom. iv. par. ii. col. 457. 
ubi sup. p. 9. note *.] 

° Quum quis se velle personas 
testium post publicationem repellere 
fuerit protestatus. Si quid pro ipso 
dixerint, iis non creditur. — Extra. 
Tex. et ibi Gloss. c. Presentium, xxxi. 
de Testibus. [This is not from the 
Extravagantes, but from the Decretals 
of Gregory IX.— Lib. ii. sect. xx. ; 
de Testibus, cap. (xxxi.) Presentium. 
(Publicatis attestationibus non op- 
ponitur in personas testium; tres 
casus excipit; et ad secundum de- 
terminationem subdit.)—Cap. xxxi. 
Preesentium anctoritate statuimus, 
ut si quis post depositiones testium 


Testimonies of certain Popes alleged for Roman Infallibility. 19 


XIII.—With these Bellarmine is pleased to name six! Sxorton 
popes, which, he saith, are all of this opinion. But” he _ OE: 
adds,? “that these testimonies will be contemned by the * [o" seven 


publicatas, objicere voluerit in perso- 
nas eorum, ei tune tandem id liceat, 
cum juramento firmaverit, quod ad 
hoe ex malitia non procedat: nisi 
forsan ante publicationem id fuerit 
protestatus ; vel ostendere poterit, 
quod post publicationem didicerit, 
quod objicit in personas. Czeterum, 
cum quis personas testium se velle 
post publicationem depositionum re- 
pellere, fuerit protestatus, si quid pro 
ipso dixerint, de facili non credatur.— 
Gloss. Per hane protestationem vi- 
detur quod noluit fidem adhibere 
dictis illorum testium contra se; non 
ergo debet habere pro se..... est 
absurdum redire ad hoe, cui renuncia- 
tum est. — Decret. Greg. IX. cum 
Gloss. p. 726. ed. Taurini, 1621; et 
Corpus Jur. Canon. tom. ii. p. 97. 
ed. Pithcei, Paris. 1687.] 

P Bell. lib. iv. de Rom. Pontif. ¢. 4. 
sect. 5. [Nam auctores citati, ut 
Lucius et Felix, pape et martyres; 
Agatho et Nicolaus, pape et confes- 
SOMES ea oe non solum pontificem, 
sed etiam Ecclesiam Romanam, asse- 
ruerunt non posse errare]... . Addo 
etiam [duorum pontificum testimonia, | 
quee etsi ab hereticis contemnantur, 
[tamen a Catholicis cum honore re- 
cipienda sunt. Unum est Martini 
Pape V. qui in Bulla (§ 3.) quam 
edidit (an. 1418. cf. Bullarium, tom. i. 
pp. 288, 289, ed. Luxemburg. 1727.) 
concilio Constantiensi approbante, 
heereticos haberi censuit eos, qui de 
Sacramentis, aut fidei articulis aliter 
sentiunt, quam Romana Ecclesia sen- 
tiat. Alterum est Sixti Pape IV. (an. 
1478.) qui primum per Synodum 
Complutensem, deinde etiam per se, 
damnayit articulos Petri cujusdam 
Oxoniensis, (Osmensis) quorum articu- 
lorum unus erat, Ecclesiam urbis Romee 
errare posse. Et quanquam heec intel- 
ligi debere videntur, preecipue ratione 
pontificis, tamen quia Keclesia Romana 
non est solus Pontifex, sed Pontifex 
et populus, ideo cum dicunt Patres, 
aut Pontifices, Romanam Ecclesiam 
non posse errare, dicere volunt; in 
Romana Ecclesia semper futurum Hpis- 
copum Catholice docentem et populum 
Catholice sentientem. — Bellarmin. 
Op. tom. i. col. 812. (ubi sup. p. 12. 
note *.)—The constitution of Sixtus 
IV. condemned certain propositions of 


.... Hditt. 


Peter de Osma, which he had taught ae and 
in the University of Salamanca. dl ‘ 
See Aguirre’s Concilia Hispanize, ? [of popes 
tom. v. p. 351, Conventus Theologo- opinions he 
rum apud Complutum (Alcala) ..... saith... . 
habitus. a.p. 1479. (1478.) So Labbe, Editt. 1673 
Concil. tom. xiii. col. 1465, Neque and 1686. | 
alienum fuerit observare eodem anno 

1479, (1478,) errores quibus Petrus de 

Osma Salmanticensem Academiam 

infecerat, tum ab ipso pope Sixto IV. 
condemnatos fuisse. The bull of 

Sixtus LV. anno 1478, is in the Bul- 

larium (tom. i. pp. 416, 417); but in 

reciting the erroneous propositions 

which it condemns, there is none 

stronger than one which asserted, 
“Romanum pontificem purgatorii 

poenam remittere, et super his que 
universalis Ecclesia statuit, dispensare 

non posse.” Peter de Osma after- 

wards submitted. (Aguirre, ibid. p. 

358.) The testimonies of the otherseven 

popes are thus cited by Bellarmine 

in the previous chapter :—1. Lucius 

I. (an. 256. cf. Concil. tom. i. col. 

725.) papa et martyr, in Hpistola 

prima ad Episcopos Hispaniz et 

Galliz. Ecclesia, inquit, (ὃ 6.) 

Romana Apostolica est, et mater 

omnium EKeclesiarum, que a tramite 
Apostolicz traditionis nunquam er- 

rasse probatur, nec heereticis novita- 

tibus depravata succubuit, secundum 

ipsius Domini pollicitationem dicentis, 

Ego rogavi pro te, &c.—2. Felix I. 

(an. 278. ef. Concil. tom. i. col. 911.) 

in Epistola ad Benignum, de Romana 

Eeclesia loquens: Ut, inquit, (δ 2.) in 

exordio normam fidei Christianze per- 

cepit ab auctoribus suis, Apostolorum 

Christi principibus, illibata manet, 

juxta illud, Lgo rogavi pro te, &e.—3. 

Leo (an. 447.) Sermone iii. (al. iv.) de 
Assumptione sua ad Pontificatum, [e. 

4, Op., tom. i. col. 14. ed. Ballerini,| 

Specialis, inquit, cura Petri a Domino 

suscipitur, et pro fide Petri proprie sup- 

plicatur, tanquam aliorum status cer- 

tior sit futurus, si mens principis victa 

non fuerit. In Petro ergo omnium forti- 

tudo munitur: et divine gratiz ita 

ordinatur auxilium, ut firmitas, que 

per Christum Petro tribuitur, per 

Petrum ceteris (al. apostolis) confera- 

tur. Ubi Leo utrumque privilegium 

agnoscit, illud primum, cum ait; Si 

mens Principis vieta non fuerit : illud 


Cre, 


20 Relative and Individual Value 


I 


Coyrerence heretics.’”? Good words, I pray! I know whom the Cardinal 


ay means by heretics very well; but the best is, his call can- 
(=e not make them so. Nor shall I easily contemn six" ancient 


Editt. 1673 bishops of Rome concurring in opinion, if apparent verity in 
end 1888) sie thing itself do not force me to dissent; and in that case 


1 shall do it without contempt too. 


secundum, cum subjungit; Firmitas, 
quee per Christum Petro tribuitur, per 
Petrum ceteris conferatur. Non enim 
confertur aliis firmitas, nisi veram 
fidem exponendo.—4. Agatho (an. 679. 
cef.Concil.tom. vi. col. 636.) papa in epis- 
tola ad Constantinum imperatorem, 
que lecta est in Sexto Synodo, actione 
4. et postea actione 8. ab omnibus 
probata: Heec est, inquit, vere fidei 
regula, quam et in prosperis et in 
adyersis vivaciter tenuit Apostolica 
Christi ecclesia, que per Dei gratiam 
a tramite Apostolic traditionis nun- 
quam errasse probatur, nec heereticis 
novitatibus unquam depravata succu- 
buit, quia dictum est Petro, Simon, 
Simon, ecce Satanas, ἕο. Ego autem 
rogavi pro te, κο. Hie Dominus fidem 
Petri non defecturam promisit, et 
confirmare eum fratres suos admon- 
uit, quod Apostolicos pontifices meze 
exiguitatis preedecessores confidenter 
fecisse semper cunctis est agnitum.— 
5. Nicolaus I. (an. 858. ef. Concil. tom. 
viii. col. 314.) in Epistola (viii.) ad 
Michaelem : Privilegia, inquit, istius 
sedis (vel Ecclesiz) perpetua sunt ; 
divinitus radicata, atque plantata 
sunt; impingi possunt, transferri non 
possunt ; trahi possunt, evelli non 
possunt. Quee ante imperium ves- 
trum fuerunt, (et) permanent, Deo 
gratias, hactenus illibata, manebunt- 
que post vos, et quousque Christia- 
num nomen predicatum fuerit, illa 
subsistere non cessabunt (immutilata). 
—6, Leo IX. (an. 1049. ef. Concil. tom. 
ix. col. 975. in Epistola ad Petrum 
Antiochenum: Nimirum, inquit, solus 
est, pro quo, ne deficeret fides ejus, 
Dominus et Salvator asseruit se ro- 
gasse, dicens, Rogavi pro te, &c. Que 
venerabilis et efficax oratio obtinuit, 
quod hactenus fides Petri non defecit, 
nec defectura creditur in throno illius. 
—7. Innocentius III. (IV.) (an. 1250. 
cf. Decret. Greg. [X. Lib. iii. Tit. xlii.) 
in Epistola ad Episcopum Arelaten- 
sem, et habetur cap. Majores, Extray. 
de Baptismo et ejus effectu: Majores, 
inquit Ecclesiz causas, presertim 
articulos fidei contingentes ad Petri 


This only I will say, 


sedem referendas intelligit qui novit 
pro eo Dominum exorasse, ne deficiat 
fides ejus.—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. 
lib. iv. ο. 3. Op., tom. i. col. 807.— 
Of these testimonies, it may be ob- 
served that the two earliest, those of 
Popes Lucius and Felix, are admitted 
to be spurious—cf. Concil. tom. i. col. 
721. “Suspecta eodem jure cum aliis 
Tsidori mercibus,” and Concil. tom. i. 
col. 903. “Suppositize hee epistole 
doctis habentur.” ] 

4 [De reliquis auctoritatibus quee ex 
Scriptis Romanorum pontificum profe- 
runtur, etix. Question. 3 (sc. Gratian. 
in Decret.) leguntur non est magnopere 
laborandum, quia Johannes Gerson, 
atque alii doctores Parisienses uno 
verbo respondent, | nemini in sua causa 
credendum, nisi conformiter ad legem 
divinam, naturalem, et canonicam lo- 
quatur: [juri autem divino et natu- 
rali repugnat, caput ministeriale im- 
perium habere absolutum in Eccle- 
siam.]—So Jo. Gerson, and the doctors 
of Paris cited in Lib. Anon. de Eccele- 
siastica et Politica Potestate, ¢. xvi. 
ed. Paris. 1612. Now these popes do 
not speak here conformably to these 
laws.—[The author of this work, first 
published anonymously, Paris 1612, 
was Edmund Richer, Syndic of the 
faculty of divinity in the Sorbonne. 
Of the circumstances attending its 
publication, a full account is in 
Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall. lib. vi. 
cap. 25. Qiuvres de Bossuet, tom. 
xxxii. p. 389. ed. Versailles, 1817. 
An English translition of it ap- 
peared in the same year, under 
the title “A Treatise of Ecclesiasti- 
call and Politike Power, &e. Faith- 
fully translated out of the Latin 
originall, of late publicly printed and 
allowed in Paris. Now set foorth for 
a further warrant and encouragement 
to the Romish Catholikes of England, 
for theyr taking of the Oath of 
Allegiance; seeing so many others 
of their owne profession in other 
countries doe deny the Popes in- 
falibility in judgement and temporall 
power over Princes, directly against 


of such Testimony. 21 


that six’ popes concurring in opinion shall have less weight Sxorton 
with me in their own cause than any other six” of the more 111: 
ancient Fathers. Indeed, could I swallow Bellarmine’s* [seven ες 
opinion, that the pope’s judgment is infallible, I would then and 1686.] 
submit without any more ado. But that will never down ma 
with me, unless I live till I dote, which I hope in God I~ 
shall not. 

XIV.—Other proofs than these Bellarmine brings not to 
prove that the particular Church of Rome cannot err in or 
from the faith; and of what force these are to sway any 
judgment, I submit to all indifferent readers, And having 
thus examined Bellarmine’s proofs that the particular 
Church of Rome cannot err in faith, I now return to 
A. C. and the Jesuit, and tell them, that no Jesuit, or A.C. p. 42. 
any other, is ever able to prove any particular Church 


infallible. 


XV.—But for the particular Church of Rome, and the 


pope with it, erred it hath, and therefore may err. 


the doctrine of Jesuits.” London. 
1612. The last and most complete 
edition of the work, with the De- 
fences, documents, references, &c., 
together with some curious opuscula 
connected with it, is that of Cologne, 
1701, in two volumes quarte. In Lib. 
i. cap. i. sect. 12. of the Defensio 
Libelli de Eecl. et Politic. Potest. tom. 
i. p. 12. ed. Colon., Richer recites 
the ancient doctrine held on the 
Gallican liberties by the Paris Schools. 
These principles are fully indicated 
in the Decree which they passed in 
1429, against John Sarrazin, (printed 
in the Libell. de Eccl. et Politic. 
Potest. Demonst. cap. xviii.) and re- 
peated in the decree of 1611, (printed 
in the preface to the Def. Libelli, &c. 
p-i—iii.) Sarrazin in his recantation 
subscribed the following articles, 
which may be considered as a sum- 
mary of the views of Gerson, Almain, 
&e., formally embodied by their suc- 
cessors in the Parisian Schools :— 
1. Omnes potestates jurisdictionis 
Keclesiasticee, alize a papali potestate, 
sunt ab ipso Christo quantum ad 
institutionem et collationem prima- 
riam: a Papa autem et ab Ecclesia 
quantum ad limitationem et dispen- 
sationem ministerialem.—2. Hujus- 
modi potestates sunt de jure divino, 
et immediate institutee a Deo.—3. 


Erred 


Invenitur in sacra Scriptura Christum 
Ecclesiam fundasse, et potestates alias 
a papali expresse ordinasse.—4. Quan- 
docunque in aliquo concilio aliqua 
instituuntur, tota auctoritas dans 
vigorem statutis residet non in solo 
summo Pontifice, sed principaliter in 
Spiritu Sancto et Ecclesia Catholica. 
—65. Ex textu Evangelii et doctrina 
apostolorum habetur expresse, apos- 
tolis et discipulis a Christo missis 
auctoritatem jurisdictionis fuisse col- 
latam.—6. Dicere inferiorum preelato- 
rum potestatem jurisdictionis, sive 
sint episcopi, sive sint curati, esse 
immediate a Deo, evangelice et 
apostolicze consonat veritati. — 7. 
Aliqua potestas, scilicet potestas 
Ecclesiz, de jure potest aliquid in 
certis casibus contra summum ponti- 
ficem.—8. Quicunque purus viator 
habens usum rationis cujuscumque 
dignitatis, auctoritatis aut preeemi- 
nentiz, etiamsi Papalis existat, 
simoniam potest committere. | 

τ Lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. ὁ. 111,5 [Sit 
igitur prima propositio: Summus 
Pontifex, cum totam ecclesiam docet, 
in his que ad fidem pertinent, nullo 
casu errare potest.—Op., tom. i. col. 
805.] 








3 fin initio. ... Editt. 1673 and 


1686. ] 


. 


~ 


Cardinal Bellarmine on Infallibility of Rome, so long as 


Conrerence I say it hath, in the worship of images, and in altering 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


Christ’s institution in the blessed sacrament, by taking 
away the cup from the people, and divers other particulars, 
as shall appear at after. And as for the ground which is 
presumed to secure this Church from error, it is very remark- 
able how the learned Cardinal’ speaks in this case; for he 
tells us, that this proposition, So long as S. Peter’s chair is 
at Rome, that particular Church cannot err in the faith, is 
verissima, “most true ;”’ and yet, in the very next words, it is 
fortasse tam vera, “peradventure as true” as the former : that 
is, That the pope, when he teaches the whole Church in 
those things which belong to the faith, cannot err in any 
case. What! is that proposition “most true,” and yet is it 
but at a “ peradventure it is as true as this?” Is it possible 
any thing should be absolutely most true, and yet under a 
peradventure that it is but as true as another truth? But 
here, without all peradventure, neither proposition is true. 
And then, indeed, Bellarmine may say, without a fortasse, 
that this proposition, The particular Church of Rome 
cannot err, so long as the see apostolic is there, is as true 
as this: The pope cannot err, while he teaches the whole 
Church in those things which belong to the faith. For 
neither of them is true. But he cannot say that either of 
them is verissima, “most true,’ when neither of them hath 
truth. 

XVI.—2. Secondly, if the particular Church of Rome be 
infallible, and can neither err in the faith nor fall from it, 
then it is because the see apostolic cannot be transferred 
from Rome, but must ever, to the consummation of the 
world, remain there, and keep that particular Church from 
erring. Now, to this what says Bellarmine? What? Why, 
he tells us," that it is a pious and most probable opinion to 


5 (V. infra,| Sect. xxxiii. (vii.) 5, 12. 


* Romana Ecclesia particularis non 
potest errare, persistente Rome apos- 
tolica sede. Propositio heee est veris- 
sima, et fortasse tam vera quam illa 
prima de Pontifice.— Lib. iv. de Rom. 
Pont. ὁ. 4. ὃ 2, [0] sup. p. 4. note 1.7 
—And that first proposition is this: 
Summus Pontifex, cum totam ecele- 
siam docet, in his que ad fidem 


pertinent, nullo casu errare potest.— 
Ibid. ὁ. 3. § 1. [wbi sup. p. 21. note™.] 

« [At secundum posteriorem sensum, 
Ecclesiam Romanam non posse defi- 
cere, est quidem pia et probabilissima 
sententia, non tamen adeo eerta, ut 
contraria dici possit heeretica, vel 
manifeste erronea, ut recte docet Jo- 
annes Driedo, lib. iv. e. 3. par. 3, 
de Ecclesiast. Dogmat. et Scripturis. 


Rome retains the Cathedra Petri.—Recapitulation. 23 


think so. And he reckons four probabilities that it shall Sxcrron 
never be removed from Rome. And I will not deny but ΤῚΣ 
some of them are fair probabilities; but yet they are but 
probabilities, and so unable to convince any man. Why 

but then, what if a man cannot think as Bellarmine doth, 

but that, enforced by the light of his understanding, he 

must think the quite contrary to this, which Bellarmine 
thinks pious, and so probable? What then? Why, then 
Bellarmine himself tells you, that “the quite contrary propo- 
sition to this,” namely, that δ. Peter’s chair may be severed 

from Rome, and that then that particular Church may err, 

“is neither heretical nor manifestly erroneous.”* So then, by 
Bellarmine’s own confession, I am no heretic, nor in any 
manifest error, if I say, as indeed I do, and think it too, 

that it is possible for S. Peter’s chair to be carried from 
Rome, and that then at least, by his own argument, that 
Church may err. 

XVII.—Now, then, upon the whole matter, and to return 
to A. C. If that lady desired to rely upon a particular A.C. p. 42. 
infallible Church, it is not to be found on earth. Rome 
hath not that gift, nor her bishop neither. And Bellarmine, 
who, I think, was as able as any champion that Church 
hath, dares not say it is either heresy or a manifest error to 
say, that the apostolic see may be removed thence, and that 
Church not only err in faith, but also fall quite away from 
it. Now I, for my part, have not ignorance enough in me 
to believe that that Church which may apostatize at some 
one time, may not err at another; especially since both her 
erring and failing may arise from other causes besides that 
which is mentioned by the Cardinal. And if it may err, it is 
not infallible. 


Quod non sit omnino de fide, a Ro- 
mana Ecclesia non posse separari 
Apostolicam sedem, patet : quia neque 
seriptura, neque traditio, habet, sedem 
Apostolicam ita fixam esse Rome, ut 
inde auferri non possit. Ht omnia 
testimonia Pontificum et Patrum, qui 
dicunt Romanam ecclesiam non posse 
errare, possent exponi de Romana ec- 
clesia, donec in ea Apostolica sedes 
permanet: non autem absolute, et 
simpliciter. Quod nihilominus tamen] 
pia et probabilissima sit sententia, 


non posse separari Petri Cathedram a 
Roma, et proinde Romanam Ecclesiam 
absolute non posse errare, nec deficere, 
[probatur primo ex eo quod tamdiu 
mansit Rome sedes A postolica non ob- 
stantibus infinitis persecutionibus, &c. 
—Bellarm. de Rom. Pont.] lib. iv. ὁ. 
4. sect. 5. [ubi sup. p. 4. note °.] 

x Contraria sententia nee est he- 
retica, nec manifeste erronea.—{Bel- 
larm.] lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. 6. 4. 
seet. 5. [ubi sup. ] 


9 


~ 


4 


ConFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsHer. 





[ A.C.p.43. | 
1 [The la- 
dy’s friend 
ἜΑ OH] 


§ 4. 


[A.C.p.43.] 


ΠῚ τ: 
caret A.C.] 


§ 5. 


Error of the Greek Church concerning, 
A 


friend of the lady’s' would needs defend, that not 


#, The question was, Which was that Church? 


only the Roman, but also the Greek Church, was 
right. 


%. When that honourable personage answered, I was not 
by to hear. But I presume he was so far from granting 
that only the Roman Church was right, as that he did not 
grant it right; and that he took on him no other defence of 
the poor Greek Church than was according to truth. 


12. I told him, That the Greek Church had plainly 
changed, and taught false in a point of doctrme con- 
cerning the Holy Ghost; and that I had heard say, 
that even His Majesty should say, That’ the Greek 
Church having erred against the Holy Ghost, had 
lost the Holy Ghost. 


2%. You are very bold with His Majesty, to relate him 
upon hearsay. _My intelligence serves me not to tell you 
what His Majesty said; but if he said it not, you have 
been too credulous to believe, and too sudden to report it. 
Princes deserve, and were wont to have, more respect than 
so. If His Majesty did say it, there is truth in the speech ; 
the error is yours only, by mistaking what is meant by 
losing the Holy Ghost. For a particular Church may be 
said to lose the Holy Ghost two ways, or in two degrees. 
1. The one, when it loses such special assistance of that 
blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous errors and 
sins, and the temporal punishment which is due unto them. 
And in this sense the Greek Church did perhaps lose the 
Holy Ghost ; for they erred against Him, they sinned against 
God; and for this, or other sins, they were delivered into 
another Babylonish captivity under the Turk, in which they 
yet are, and from which God in His mercy deliver them! 
But this is rather to be called an error circa Spiritum Sanc- 
tum, about the doctrine “ concerning the Holy Ghost,” than 
an error against the Holy Ghost. 2. The other is, when it 
loses not only this assistance, but all assistance ad hoc, to 
this, that they may remain any longer a true Church; and 


not against, the Holy Ghost. 25 


so Corinth and Ephesus, and divers other Churches, have  Sxcrrox 
lost the Holy Ghost. But in this sense the whole Greek _ Y! 
Church lost not the Holy Ghost; for they continue a true 
Church, in the main substance, to and at this day, though 
erroneous in this point which you mention, and perhaps in 

some other too. 


#. The lady’s friend, not knowing what to answer, [A.C.p.43.] 
called in the Bishop, who, sitting down first, excused* 
himself as one unprovided, and not much studied in 
controversies ; and desiring that, in case he should 
fail, yet the Protestant cause might not be thought 
ΠΡΟ oan ma a 


“~ [The Chaplain taxeth the Jesuit, as if in this parcel he did insult, and 
saith it was the %3.’s modesty to use this excuse, and to say “there were a 
hundred scholars better than he.” But I do not see any insultation, but a 
simple and true narration of what was said. Neither do I see less modesty in 
the Jesuit’s preferring a thousand before himself, than in the %.’s preferring a 
hundred before himself.—A. C. marg. note to p. 43.] 


%, This is most true; for I did indeed excuse myself, and ᾧ 6. 
I had great reason so to do. And my reason being grounded 
upon modesty for the most part, there I leave it. Yet this 
it may be fit others should know, that I had no information 
where the other conferences brake off, no instruction at all 
what should be the ground of this third conference, nor the 
full time of four-and-twenty hours to bethink myself. And 
this I take upon my credit is most true; whereas you make 
the sifting of these and the like questions to the very bran 
your daily work, and came thoroughly furnished to the 
business, and might so lead on the controversy to what 
yourself pleased, and I was to follow as I could. 8. Augus- 
tine said once, Scio me invalidum esse, “1 know 1 am weak;” 
and yet he made good his cause. And so perhaps may I 
against you. And in that I prefered the cause before my 
particular credit, that which I did was with modesty, and 
according to reason. For there is no reason the weight of 
this whole cause should rest upon any one particular man ; 


Y De Util. Credendi, [contra Mani- suetudinem plagis veternosarum opi- 
cheos,| ὁ. ii. [S. Augustin. Op., tom. nionum sauciatum oculum anime 
viil. col, 48. B. ed. Benedict. Quoniam gerens, invalidum me esse cognosco, 
propter peccata mea propterque con- seepe rogo cum lacrymis.| 


26 


Not all Errors are against Fundamentals. 


Conrerence and great reason, that the personal defects of any man 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


[A.C.p. 44.] 


[A.C.p.44.] 


should press himself, but not the cause. Neither did I enter 
upon this service out of any forwardness of my own, but 
commanded to it by supreme authority. 


¥. ...it having an hundred better scholars to maintain 
it than he. To which I said, There were a thousand 
better scholars than I to maintain the Catholic cause. 


“Ὁ. In this I had never so poor a conceit of the Protes- 
tants’ cause, as to think that they had but an hundred better 
than myself to maintain it. That which hath an hundred, 
may have as many more as it pleases God to give, and more 
than you. And I shall ever be glad that the Church of 
England, which, at this time, if my memory reflect not 
amiss, I named, may have far more able defendants than 
myself. I shall never envy them, but rejoice for her. And 
I make no question, but that if I had named a thousand, 
you would have multiplied yours into ten thousand for the 
Catholic cause, as you call it. And this confidence of yours 
hath ever been fuller of noise than proof. But you proceed, 


35. Then the question about the Greek Church being 
proposed,* I said as before, That it had erred. 


* [The Chaplain telleth, that the Jesuit said, that what the %. would not 
acknowledge in this, he would “wring and extort from him.” But these 
words of “wringing and extorting” the Jesuit never useth, even to his 
meanest adversaries, and therefore not likely to have used then to the 38. ; 
but at most, that he would evince by argument or such like.—A. C. marg. 
note to p. 44.] 


%. Then I think the question about the Greek Church 
was proposed. But after you had, with confidence enough, 
not spared to say, that what I would not acknowledge in this 
cause, you would wring and extort from me; then indeed 
you said as before, that it had erred; and this no man 
denied. But every error denies not Christ, the foundation ; 
or makes Christ deny it, or thrust it from the foundation. 


F. The 25. said, that the error was not in [a] point 
fundamental.* 


* [The Chaplain saith: “The %. was not so peremptory: his speech was, 
that divers learned men, and some of your own, are of opinion, as the Greeks 
expressed themselves, it was a question not simply fundamental.” But 
the Jesuit cannot remember the 38. to have said these words: yet if he did, 
the Jesuit did not much miss of the chief point of the %.’s meaning, which 


Denial of Double Procession erroneous, not heretical. 


was, by the distinction of faith fundamental and not fundamental, to defend 
the errors of the Grecians not to be such, (although held against the known 
definitive sentence of the Church,) as doth hinder salvation, or exclude them 
from being members of the true Church. About which see more hereafter.— 
A. C. marg. note to p. 44.] 


2%, I.—I was not so peremptory. My speech was, that 
divers learned men, and some of your own, were of opinion, 
that, as the Greeks expressed themselves, it was a question 
not simply fundamental. I know and acknowledge that error, 
of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, 
to be a grievous error in divinity. And sure, it would have 
erated the foundation, if they had so denied the procession of 
the Holy Ghost from the Son, as that they had made an 
inequality between the persons. But since their form of 
speech is,” That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by 
the Son, and is the Spirit of the Son, without making any 
difference in the consubstantiality of the persons ; I dare not 
deny them to be a true Church for this, though I confess 
them an erroneous Church in this particular. 

II.—Now that divers learned men were of opinion, that a 
Filio et per Filium, in the sense of the Greek Church, was but 
a question in modo loquendi, ‘im manner of speech,” * and 
therefore not fundamental, is evident.» The master and his 


z [At vero Eum] non ex Filio esse 
dicimus : sed Filii Spiritum [nomina- 
mus. |—Damascen. lib. i. Fid. Orth. 
Ὁ. 11. [p. 272. A. B. ed. Billii— 
Denique Spiritum sanctum et ex Patre 
esse statuimus,] et Patris [Spiritum 
appellamus..... atque Ipsum nobis] 
per Filium [et patefactum esse, et im- 
pertiri confitemur.]— Ibid. [Τὸ δὲ 
πνεῦμα TO ἅγιον, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς 
λέγομεν, καὶ πνεῦμα πατρὸς ὀνομάζομεν" 
ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐ λέγομεν' 
πνεῦμα δὲ υἱοῦ ὀνομάζομεν᾽ εἴ τις γὰρ τὸ 
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει, φησὶν ὁ θεῖος 
ἀπόστολος, οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ" καὶ δι᾽ 
υἱοῦ πεφανερῶσθαι, καὶ μεταδίδοσθαι ἡμῖν, 
ὀμολογοῦμεν΄ ----ἶϑ, Joann. Damascen. De 
Fid. Orthodox. lib. i. cap. 8. Op., tom. 
i. p. 141, B. ed. Lequien. ] 

« [Ad secundum dicendum quod in 
tribus symbolis una veritas continetur, 
magis tamen explicita in uno quam in 
alio, propter novas heereses variis tem- 
poribus insurgentes; talis autem] plu- 
ralitas in voce, salvata unitate in re, 
non repugnat unitati fidei.— Durand[i 
de Sancto Portiano Apostolici quon- 
dam penitentiarii, Meldensis ecclesiz 


Episcopi, in quatuor Sententiarum 
libros queestionum resolutiones]. Lib. 
ILI. D[istinct.] xxv. Q[uzest.] 2. [fol. 
cexcili. ed. Paris. 1508. | 

Ὁ [Petri Lombard.] Magist[ri Sen- 
tentiarum,] I. Sentent. D[istinct.] 
xi. D. [Sciendum est tamen quod 
Greeci confitentur Spiritum Sanctum 
esse Filii, sicut et Patris; quia et 
Apostolus dicit, Spiritum Filii (Galat. 
iv. 6.) Et Veritas in Evangelio, Spiri- 
tum Veritatis (Joan. xvi. 13.) Sed cum 
non sit aliud Spiritum Sanctum esse 
Patris vel Filii, quam esse a Patre et 
Filio ; etiam in hoc in eandem no- 
biscum fidei sententiam convenire 
videntur, licet in verbis dissentiant. ] 
—Sane sciendum, quod licet in pra- 
senti articulo a nobis Greci verbo 
discordent, tamen sensu non differunt. 
[Confitentur enim Spiritum esse Filii, 
etsi non a Filio, quia scriptum est, 
Spiritum Filii.]—Bandinus, lib. i. de 
Trin. 4. xi. [. 6. Bandini, Theologi 
doctissimi ae pervetusti, Sententia- 
rum libri quatuor, &c.—lib. i. de 
Trinitate, Dist. xi. p. 54. ed. Lovan. 
1557.|—Et Bonaventura, in I. Sent. 


27 


Srorron 
DX: 


ὃ 9. 


28 


Conrrrence SCholars agree upon it. 


WITH 
r Hoe 
FIsHEr. 





The Greek Expressions about the Procession, differ 


“The Greeks,” saith he, “confess the 


Holy Ghost to be the ‘ Spirit of the Son,’ (with the Apostle,) 


and the ‘Spirit of truth.’ 


D{istinct.] xi. A[rt.] 1. Qfueest.] 1. 
Sect. xii. [Op., tom. iv. p. 95. A. ed. 
Mogunt. 1609.], licet Greecis infen- 
sissimus, quum dixit Greecos objicere 
curiositatem Romanis, addendo /%i/io- 
que [ubi ait, Redarguunt tanquam 
curiosos ...... Greecos,| quia sine 
hujus Articuli professione salus erat, 
non respondet negando salutem esse, 
sed dicit tantum, Opportunam fuisse 
determinationem propter periculum. 
—t postea, [Bonavent.] Sect. xv. 
{Ad illud quod objicitur de nexu, 
dicendum quod nexus non habet 
rationem medii, sed rationem tertii, 
quanquam aliquivoluerunt dicere quod 
locum tenet et medii et tertii:] et vo- 
luerunt isti sustinere opinionem Gree- 
corum, et Latinorum, et distinguunt 
duplicem modum procedendi, [scilicet 
in alium, et sic procedit a Patre, vel ab 
alio, et sic procedit a Patre et Filio.— 
Ib. p. 95. B.|—Sed forte si duo sapi- 
entes, unus Greecus, [et] alter Latinus, 
uterque verus amator veritatis, et non 
propriz dictionis, [unde propria est] 
de hae visa contrarietate disquirerent, 
pateret utique tandem ipsam con- 
trarietatem non esse veraciter realem, 
sicut est vocalis: [alioquin, vel ipsi 
Greeci, vel nos Latini sumus vere heere- 
tici. Sed quis audet hune auctorem 
Joannem sc. Damascenum, et Beatos, 
se. Basilium, Gregorium Theologum, 
Gregorium Nazianzenum, Cyrillum, 
et similes Patres Greecos arguere 
heereseos ?}|—Scotus in I. Sent. D[is- 
tinct.]xi.Q[uzest. ]1.[Op., tom. v. par. i. 
p- 858. ed. Lugd. 1639. |—Antiquorum 
apud Greecos auctorum, [ut Cyrilli, 
Damasceni, et similium,]a Latinis in 
voce potius, et modo explicandi 
emanationem Spiritus Sancti est dis- 
crepantia, quam in ipsa re. [Handem 
enim penitus sententiam preetendunt, 
dicentes Spiritum Sanctum per Fili- 
um procedere, quam Latini et dicen- 
tes Spiritum Sanctum procedere ex 
Filio; licet aliis ad illum exprimen- 
dum utantur verbis.|—Jodocus Clich- 
toveeus [Neoportiensis, Comment.| in 
Damase. Fid. Orthod. lib. i.¢.11. [Op., 
S.Joan. Damase. p. 274. B. ed. Billii. |— 
[Unde etiam ipsi Greeci processionem 
Spiritus Sancti aliquem ordinem 
habere ad Filium intelligunt. Con- 
cedunt enim Spiritum Sanctum esse 
Spiritum Filii, et esse a Patre per 


And since non est aliud, ‘it is not 


Filium.] Et quidam eorum dicuntur 
concedere, quod sit a Filio, vel profluat 
ab Eo, [non tamen quod procedat. 
Quod yidetur vel ex ignorantia vel 
ex protervia esse.|—Thom. [Aquin. 
Summ.]| Pfars] i. Qf{ueest.] xxxvi. 
A[rt.] 2. [in conclus. |—Et Thomas 
ipse dicit, Spiritum Sanctum proce- 
dere mediate a Filio, saltem ratione 
Personarum Spirantium: [se. Ad pri- 
mum ergo dicendum, quod in qualibet 
actione est duo considerare, scilicet 
suppositum agens, et virtutem qua 
agit, sicut ignis calefacit calore. Si 
igitur in Patre et Filio consideratur 
virtus, qua spirant Spiritum Sanctum, 
non cadit ibi aliquod medium: quia 
heee virtus est una et eadem. Si 
autem considerentur ipse persone spi- 
rantes, sic cum Spiritus Sanctus com- 
muniter procedat a Patre et Filio, in- 
yenitur Spiritus Sanctus immediate 
a Patre procedere, in quantum est 
ab Eo, et mediate in quantum est a 
Filio. |}—Ibid. A[rt.] 8. [Resp.] ad 1. 
—Respondeo [igitur] cum Bessarione 
et Gennadio, Damascenum non negasse 
Spiritum Sanctum procedere ex Filio, 
quod ad rem attinet, cum dixerit, 
Spiritum esse imaginem Filii, et per 
Filium [esse]; sed existimasse, tutius 
dici per Filium, quam ex Filio, quan- 
tum ad modum loquendi, [propter 
heeresim Macedonii, et Eunomii, qui 
ex Filio, tanquam primaria, immo 
etiam sola, causa processisse dicebant 
Spiritum Sanctum.]—Bellarm. Lib. 
ii. de Christo ὁ. 27. ὃ Respondeo 
igitur, [Op., tom. i. col. 372. B. |—Et 
Tollet. in 8. Joann. xv. Annot. 25. 
[Greecus intelligens fatetur Spiritum 
esse Filii et Patris, et a Patre proce- 
dere, sed per Filium, quod non aliud 
significat quam quod nos dicimus, 
Filius producit Spiritum Sanctum a 
Patre; id est, habeta Patre producere 
Spiritum ; hoc est, Patrem per Filium 
producere Spiritum Sanctum, sicut 
Deus per Verbum omnia creayvit.— 
Yoleti Cardinal. in loann, Evangel. 
Comment. tom. ii. col. 131. ed. Lugd. 
1615.|—Et Lutheran. Respons. ad 
Respons. ii. Jeremie Patriarche. 
[ Producuntur etiam Patres, clarissima 
illa eclesie lumina, quinetiam 
Pontifices aliquot Romani, tanquam 
testes, qui de processione Spiritus 
Sancti a Patre loquantur: Athanasius 


verbally, but not essentially, from those of the West. 


another thing’ to say, the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the 
Father and the Son, than that He is or proceeds from the 
Father and the Son, in this they seem to agree with us in 
eandem fidei sententiam, ‘upon the same sentence of faith,’ 
though they differ in words.” Now in this cause, where the 
words differ, but “the sentence of faith” is “the same,” ° peni- 
tus eadem, “ even altogether the same,” can the point be fun- 
damental? You may make them no Church, (as Bellarmine 
doth,) and so deny them salvation, which cannot be had out 
of the true Church ; but I for my part dare not so do. And 
Rome in this particular should be more moderate, if it be 
but because this article, Filioque, was added to the Creed by 
herself. And it is hard to add and anathematize too. 
III.—It ought to be no easy thing to condemn a man of 
heresy in foundation of faith ; much less a Church; least of 
all, so ample and large a Church as the Greek, especially so 
as to make them no Church. Heaven gates were not so 
easily shut against multitudes, when 5. Peter wore the keys 
at his own girdle. And it is good counsel which Alphonsus a 
Castro, one of your own, gives: ‘ Let them consider, that pro- 
nounce easily of heresy, how easy it is for themselves to err.”’* 


videlicet, Gregorius Theologus, Xe. 
Agnoscimus sane inter hos 
plerosque fuisse magnee in Ecclesia 
Dei authoritatis, et eorum saluberri- 
mos labores exosculamur, atque Deo 
pro eximiis donis, que in ipsos con- 
tulit, gratias agimus. Sed non vide- 
mus, quomodo ipsorum dicta a vobis 
allata cum nostra sententia pugnent, 
Idem enim dicunt, quod Christus; 
quod videlicet Spiritus Sanctus a 
Patre procedat. At nos hoc nunquam 
negavimus; neque unquam, Domino 
bene nos juvante, negabimus. Aliud 
autem est affirmare, quod Spiritus 
Sanctus a Patre procedat: et aliud 
dicere, quod non a Filio etiam proce- 
dat. Primum dicunt illi Patres et 
pontifices commemorati : alterum vero 
nequaquam dicunt. Quare cum nostra 
sententia non pugnant..... Quin- 
etiam vestri Patres nobiscum faciunt : 
licet verbis aliquatenus discrepent. 
Athanasius certe, &c.—Acta et Scripta 
Theologorum Wirtembergensium et 
Patriarche Constantinopolitani D. 
Hieremize: que utrique ab anno 
MDLXXVI. usque ad annum MDLXXXI. 
de Augustana Confessione inter se 
miserunt: Greece et Latine ab iis- 


dem Theologis edita. pp. 291—298. 
ed. Witebergee, 1584. ] 

¢ Handem penitus sententiam, &c. 
—Clichtoy. ubi sup. [p. 28. note “.] 

4 Bellarmin. De Notis Ecclesiz, 
lib. iv. c. ὃς. [Op., tom. ii. col. 183. D. 
Dico secundo, argumentum a succes- 
sione legitima adferri a nobis preecipue 
ad probandum non esse Ecclesiam, ubi 
non est hee successio, quod quidem 
evidens est: ex quo tamen non colli- 
gilur necessario ibi esse Ecclesiam, 
ubi est successio. Itaque hoe argu- 
mento probamus evidenter, non esse 
Ecclesiam apud Lutheranos.] Quod 
autem apud Greecos [non sit Ecclesia, 
probamus alio modo, quia nimirum 
convicti sunt legitime in tribus ple- 
nariis conciliis, Lateranensi, Lugdu- 
nensi et Florentino, de schismate et 
heeresi, ac preecipue de heresi circa 
processionem Spiritus Sancti a Filio, 
quam esse manifestam heresim, Lu- 
therani et Calviniste etiam confi- 
tentur. | 

e Lib. iii. adv. Hereses, in verbo 
Beatitudo. {Secund. Heeres.]} fol. 93. A. 
{Alphonsi a Castro, Op., p. 211. F. ed. 
Paris. 1571. Aut ergo Papias non est 
heereticus censendus, aut alii qui eum 


29 


SECTION 
IX. 


30 


Are all Points defined by the Church, Fundamentals ? 


Corrrrence Or if you will pronounce, consider what it is that separates 


WITH 


Fister. from the Church simply, and not in part only. 


[A.C. p.44.] 


I must needs 
profess, that I wish heartily, as well as others,‘ that those 
distressed men, whose cross is heavy already, had been more 
plainly and moderately dealt withal, though they think a 
diverse thing from us, than they have been by the Church of 
Rome. But hereupon you say you were “ forced,” 


#. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had for- 
merly brought against D. White concerning points 
fundamental, [first reading* the sentence of S. 
Augustine, Ferendus est disputator errans, &c., out of 
which is proved,t that all pomts defined by the 


Church are fundamental. 1] 


* [The Chaplain’s corrupt copy hath “righting,” instead of “reading,” the 
sentence of 5. Austin. The whole sentence is set down by the Chaplain thus: 
“This is a thing founded. An erring disputer is to be borne withal in other 
questions not diligently digested, not yet made firm by full authority of the 
Church,—there error is to be borne with. But it ought not to go so far that it 
should labour to shake the foundation itself of the Church.”—-S. August. Serm. 
14, de Verbis Apost. cap. 12.—A. C. marg. note to p. 44. ] 

+ [Out of this place we may gather that all points defined are fundamental. 
“All points defined are,” as 8. Austin speaketh, “ made firm by full authority 
of the Church.” But all points made firm by full authority of the Church are 
fundamental, in such sense as the Jesuit taketh the word “fundamental,” that 
is, in S. Austin’s language, such as cannot be denied, or donbtfully disputed 
against, without shaking the foundation of the Church. For denying or doubt- 
fully disputing against any one, why not against another, and another, and so 
against all ?~since all are made firm to us by one and the same divine 
revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority of the 
Church ; which being weakened in any one, cannot be to [so] firm in any 
other.—A. C. marg. note to p. 45.] 

+ [By the word “fundamental,” is understood not only those prima eredi- 
bilia, or prime principles, which do not depend upon any former grounds; for 
then all the articles of the creed were not, as both the %, and D. White say 
they are, fundamental points; but all which do so pertain to supernatural, 
divine, infallible, Christian faith, by which faith Christ the only prime 
foundation of the Church doth dwell in our hearts (1 Cor. iii. 11.), and which 
faith is to the Church the substance, basis, and foundation of all good things 
which are to be hoped for (Heb. xi. [1.]), as that, they being once confirmed or 
made firm by full authority of the Church, if they are wittingly, willingly, and 
especially obstinately, denied or questioned, all the whole frame, and in a sort 
the foundation itself, of all supernatural Divine Christian faith, is shaken.— 
A. C. marg. note to p. 45.] 


in hae parte sunt secuti, eadem ratione 
dicentur heeretici. Hee omnia in 
medium placuit adferre,| ut videant 
hi, qui facile de hzeresi pronuntiant, 
quam facile etiam ipsi errent: et 
intelligant, non esse tam leviter de 
heeresi censendum, [preecipue cum non 
sit pejus crimen quod viro Chris- 
tiano possit impingi, quam si heere- 
ticus eppelletur. | 


£ Junius, Animad(versiones] in Bel- 
lar[min.] Controv. ii. lib. ii. [de 
Christo, | cap. 23. [1. Art. 10. Op., tom. 
ii. col. 564. ed. Geney. 1613. Viderint 
ergo homines nostri, quo jure Greecis 
et Orientalibus LEeclesiis assensum 
preebitum, et ex assensu mendacium 
perfidiamque secutam objiciant. Mihi 
profecto non liquet, ut dicam ex 
solemni formula. Simplicius mode- 


The Scholastic Theory of Fundamentals, 


2%, I.—Hereupon it is true, that you read a large discourse 
out of a book printed, which you said was yours; the particu- 
lars, all of them at the least, I do not now remember, nor did I 
then approve. But if they be such as were formerly brought 
against Doctor White, they are by him formerly answered. 
The first thing you did was the righting? of S. Augustine : 
which sentence I do not at all remember was so much as 
named in the conference, much less was it stood upon, and 
then righted by you. Another place of δ. Augustine indeed 
was (which you omit) ; but it comes after, about tradition, to 
which I remit it. But now you tell us of a great proof made 
out of this place :" for these words of yours contain two pro- 
positions. One, “that all points defined by the Church are 
fundamental ;” the other, “that this is proved out of this 
place of 5. Augustine.” 

II.—1. For the first, “ that all poimts defined by the Church 
are fundamental.” It was not the least means by which Rome 
grew to her greatness, to blast every opposer she had with 
the name of heretic, or schismatic; for this served to shrivel 
the credit of the persons ; and the persons once brought into 
contempt and ignominy, all the good they desired in the 
Church fell to dust, for want of creditable persons to back 
and support it. To make this proceeding good in these later 
years, this course, it seems, was taken. The school, that 
must maintain, (and so they do,) “that all points defined 
by the Church are thereby fundamental,’ necessary to 
be believed,* of the substance of the faith,! and that, 


ratiusque agi cum iis qui diversum 
a nobis sentiunt optaverim. | 

s “ Virst righting the sentence of S. 
Augustine, Ferendus est disputator 
errans, &c.” Here A.C. p. 44, tells us 
very learnedly, that my corrupt copy 
hath righting instead of reading the 
sentence of S. Augustine. Whereas I 
here use the word righting, not as it 
is opposed to reading, (as any man 
may discern A.C. palpably mistakes,) 
but for doing right to S. Augustine ; 
and if I had meant it for writing, I 
should not have spelled it so. 

h «By which is proved, that all 
points defined by the Church are 
fundamental.”—[A. C. p. 44.] 

i Your own word. 

k Inconcussa fide ab omnibus.— 
Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. 


Q[uest.] i. Art{ic.] 10. Cfonclusio... 
Respondeo dicendum, quod... . nova 
editio symboli necessaria est ad vitan- 
dum insurgentes hereses. Ad illius 
ergo auctoritatem pertinet editio sym- 
boli, ad cujus auctoritatem pertinet 
finaliter determinare ea que sunt 
fidei, ut ab omnibus inconcussa fide 
teneantur. Hoe autem pertinet ad 
auctoritatem summi pontificis, ad 
quem majores et difficiliores Ecclesize 
queestiones, ut dicitur in v. Decret. 
Distinct. 43.] 

1 Scotus [in] I. Sentent. D[istinct.]. 
xi. Q[ueest.] 1. [Op., tom. v. par. 1. 
p- 858. Quicquid sit de eis, ex quo 
Ecclesia Catholica declaravit hoc esse 
tenendum, sicut de substantia fidei, 
sicut patet Hatrav. de Summ. Trin. 
et Hid. Cathol. Cap. Firmiter, 


ol 


SECTION 


«Δ. 


§ 10. 


32 


Distinction between the Church in general and a General Council. 


Corrrrence though it be determined quite extra Scripturam.’™ And then 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


leave the wise and active heads to take order," that there be 
strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them. 

III.—But since these men distinguish not, nor you, between 
the Church in general and a General Council, which is but her 
representation for determinations of the faith; though I be 
very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawful, 
general, and consenting authority ; though I give as much as 
can justly be given to the definitions of Councils truly 
general; nay, suppose I should grant, which I do not, that 
General Councils cannot err ; yet this cannot down with me, 
that all poimts even so defined are fundamental. For 
deductions are not prime and native principles; nor are 
superstructures foundations. That which is a foundation for 
all, cannot be one and another to different Christians in 
regard of itself; for then it could be no common rule for any, 
nor could the souls of men rest upon a shaking foundation. 
No: if it be a true foundation, it must be common to all, 


tenendum est, quod Spiritus Sanctus 
procedat ab Utroque. | 

m [Tales autem sunt heereticorum 
profane: voces, non solum_ extra 
Scripturam, sed etiam exira omnem 
ecclesiasticam traditionem et auctori- 
tatem privato judicio prolate. Nam] 
ecclesiasticas voces, etiam extra 
Scripturas, [iidem illi Sancti Patres 
studiosissime receperunt. |—Stapleton, 
{Relectio Scholastica principiorum 
fidei doctrinalium per controversias, 
queestiones et articulos tradita ; | Con- 
troy. [Capitalis, ] iv. [De Potest. Eecl.] 
Quest. i. Art. 3.[solut. argumentorum, 
Op., tom. i. p. 743. D. ed. Paris. 1620. ] 
—([Sed] que [Ecclesia ab Apostolo- 
rum usque temporibus firma et certa 
traditione accepit, vel contra heereses 
in causa fidei| maturo judicio de- 
finivit, [vel pro loco et tempore in 
moribus definiendum censuit,| etiam 
si nullo Scripturarum, aut evidenti, 
aut probabili, testimonio confirmetur, 
solidum tamen [et indubitatum 
cuivis fideli et vero Ecclesize filio esse 
debet.|—Ibid. [p. 744. A.] 

" Et penes Cercopes victoria sit. 
—Greg. Nazian. de Differen. Vite. 
{Carm. xvii. (al. x.) 1. 101. de diversis 
vitz generibus, et adversus falsos 
episcopos. Op., tom. ii. p. 854. ed. 
Benedict. 1840. et tom. ii. p. 81. B. 
ed. Paris. 1630. 


Ταῦτα μὲν, οἷσι φίλον, καὶ κερκώπων 
κράτος εἴη" 

Αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ Χριστοῦ πλήσομαι ἀτρεμέων.] 
—Cercopes vocat astutos et veteratorize 
{cujusdam] improbitatis Episcopos, 
gui artibus suis ac dolis concilia 
omnia perturbabant. — Schol. ibid. 
{t. e. Jacob. Billii, in Carm. Greg. 
Nazianz. tom. ii. col. 1361. D. ed. 
Paris. 1630. —’Ayopd Κερκώπων" id 
est, Coetus Cercopum, de concilia- 
bulo conventuque versutorum et 
improborum hominum  dicebatur. 
Narrant enim, Cercopes quosdam in 
Epheso fuisse, note fraudulentiz 
viros, qui suis dolis conati sint ipsi 
Jovi imponere. Hos admonuerat 
mater ne in Melampygum inciderent, 
id quod evenit. Nam post ab Hercule 
vineti sunt, jussu Omphales. Qui- 
dam aiunt, quosdam ob imposturas et 
malas artes κέρκωπας, quasi caudatos, 
appellatos fuisse apud Ephesios atque 
Athenienses: ut idem sit sensus 
hujus adagionis, et illius cujus alibi 
meminimus, λύκου δεκάς. (col. 584.) 
Torquet hoe convitium schines in 
Demosthenem (de Falsa Leg. c. xvii. et 
ibi Schol.) ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἣν ποθ᾽ ὁ κέρκωψ, 
ἢ τὸ καλούμενον παιπάλημα, ἢ τὸ 
παλίμβολον, ἢ τὰ τοιαῦτα ῥήματα, οὐκ 
ἤδειν mpdrepov—Erasm. Adag. Chil. 
11. cent. vii. 35. col. 592, 593. ed. Colon. 
1612.] 


Articles of the Creed the only necessary Fundamentals. 


and firm under all; in which sense the Articles of Christian 
Faith are fundamental. And Irenzus® lays this for a 
ground, that the whole Church, howsoever dispersed in place, 
speaks this with one mouth: “ He, which among the guides 
of the Church is best able to speak, utters no more than this; 
and less than this, the most simple doth not utter.” There- 
fore the creed, of which he speaks, is a common, is a con- 
stant foundation. And an explicit faith must be of this, in 
them which have the use of reason; for both guides and 
simple people, all the Church, utter this. 

IV.—Now, many things are defined by the Church, which 
are but deductions out of this: which, suppose them deduced 
right, move far from the foundation—without which de- 
ductions explicitly believed, many millions of Christians go 
to heaven—and cannot therefore be fundamental in the 
faith. True deductions from the article may require ne- 
cessary belief, in them which are able, and do go along with 
them from the principle to the conclusion. But I do not 
see, either that the learned do make them necessary to all, 
or any reason why they should. Therefore they cannot be 
fundamental; and yet to some men’s salvation they are 


necessary. 


V.—Besides, that which is fundamental in the faith of 
Christ, isa rock immovable, and can never be varied; never.? 


° Quum enim una et eadem fides 
sit, neque is qui multum de ipsa dicere 
potest, plusquam oportet, dicit ; neque 
qui parum, ipsam imminuit.—Iren. 
lib. i. Advers. Heeres. ¢. 3. [Καὶ οὔτε 
ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖς 
ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων, ἕτερα τούτων 
ἐρεῖ" (οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον,) 
οὔτε ᾧ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει 
τὴν παράδοσιν" μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς 
πίστεως οὔσης, οὔτε ὁ πολὺ περὶ αὐτῆς 
δυνάμενος εἰπεῖν, ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ 
τὸ ὀλίγον, HAatTéynoe.—lren. contra 
Heereses, lib. i. cap. 5. (al. x. 2.) in fin. 
pp. 47, 47. ed. Grabe. Oxon. 1702.] 

P Resolutio Occhami est, quod nee 
tota ecclesia, nec concilium generale, 
hec summus pontifex potest facere 
articulum, quod non fuit articulus. 
Sed in dubiis propositionibus potest 
ecclesia determinare, an sint catho- 
licee, ἅς. amen sic determinando 
non facit quod sint catholics, quum 
prius essent ante ecclesiz determi- 


VOL. II.—LAUD. 


nationem, &c.—[Magistri Jacobi] Al- 
main. in III. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] 
xxv. Q[ueest.] 1. [Conclus. 7. fol. Ixxx. 
ed. Lugd. 1527.—Almain’s words are : 
Sed ecclesia bene determinat de pro- 
positionibus catholicis, de quibus erat 
dubium prius, an essent catholice 
vel non, quod sint catholic: nam 
sunt aliquee catholics, et tamen est 
dubium, quia non continentur ex- 
pressee in sacris literis, sed deducun- 
tur ex aliquibus contentis in sacris 
literis. Ecclesia potest determinare 
quod sint catholicee: tamen sic deter- 
minando non facit qued sint catho- 
licze, quum prius essent ante ecclesiz 
determinationem, et sie facit ecclesia 
quod non remanet amplius dubium 
an ille sint catholic. Exemplum: 
determinavit Heclesia quod Spiritus 
Sanctus procedebat a Patre et Filio ; 
non facit quod non prius fuerit Catho- 
lica; sed quod non amplius est dubium 
de illa, de qua licebat prius dubitare. 


D 


33 


Srorron 
XG 


34 


The Church cannot add to the Faith. 


Coxrrrence Therefore, if it be fundamental after the Church hath 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


defined it, it was fundamental before the definition ; else it 15 
movable ; and then no Christian hath where to rest. And 
if it be immovable,’ as indeed it is, no decree of a council, 
be it never so general, can alter immoveable verities, no more 
than it can change immovable natures. Therefore if the 
Church in a council define any thing, the thing defined is 
not fundamental because the Church hath defined it; nor 
can be made so by the definition of the Church, if it be not 
so in itself. For if the Church had this power, she might 
make a new article of the faith, which the learned among 
yourselves deny:" for the articles of the faith cannot increase 
in substance, but only in explication.s And for this, I will be 
judged by Bellarmine, ‘who, disputing against Amb [rosius | 
Catharinus, about the certainty of faith, tells us, “that divine 
faith hath not its certainty because it is Catholic, ἐ.6. com- 
mon to the whole Church, but because it builds on the 
authority of God, Who is truth itself, and can neither deceive 
nor be deceived.” And he adds, “that the probation of the 
Church can make it known to all, that the object of divine 
faith is revealed from God, and therefore certain, and not to 
be doubted; but the Church can add no certainty, no firm- 
ness to the word of God revealing it.” 

VI.—WNor is this hard to be farther proved out of your own 
school; for Scotus professeth it in this very particular of 


—Cf. Gulielmi de Ockam Dialogus, ecclesia nec papa potest facere novum 


liber secundus prime partis, c. 12. 14. 
It is contained in Melchior. Goldasti 
Monarchia 8. Romani Imperii, tom. 
ii. p. 419. et sqq. ed. Francof. 1614.] 

4 Regula [quidem] Fidei una om- 
nino est, sola immobilis, et irreforma- 
bilis. — Tertul. de Virg. vel. cap. i. 
[p. 173. A.] In hae fide, &c. Nihil 
transmutare, &c.—Athan. Epist. ad 
Jovian. de fide. [Ταύτῃ τῇ πίστει, 
Αὔγουστε, πάντας ἐπιμένειν ἀναγκαῖον, 
ὡς θείᾳ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ, καὶ μηδένα 
μετάκινειν αὐτὴν πιθανολογίαις καὶ 
Aoyouaxlas, ὅπερ πεποιήκασιν οἱ 
᾿Αρειομανῖται" κ. τ. A.—Sect. iv. Op., 
tom. i. parsii. p.782 A. ed. Benedict. | 

τ Occham. {as quoted by] Almain. 
in III. Sent. D{istinct.] xxv. Q{ueest.] 
1. [Sed utrum ecclesia possit facere 
articulum novum quod tangit Ocham 
in secundo libro dialogi in prima 
parte, dicit resolutorie, quod nec 


articulum.—lIbid. paulo supra. | 

s Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. 
Quest. i. Art. 7. C[onclus. Dicendum 
est, quod quantum ad substantiam 
articulorum fidei, non est factum 
eorum augmentum per temporum 
successionem, quia queecunque pos- 
teriores crediderunt, continebantur in 
fide preecedentium patrum, licet im- 
plicite. Sed quantum ad explicatio- 
nem crevit numerus articulorum; 
quia quedam explicite cognita sunt 
a posterioribus, que a prioribus non 
cognoscebantur explicite. | 

* (Quod vero Concilium, (se. Tri- 
dentinum), non rejiciat certitudinem 
solius fidei Catholics, sed omnis 
divine fidei, intelligi potest primum 
ex eo, quod Concilium, data opera, 
non fecit mentionem fidei Catholice, 
ut similibus glossis aditum preclu- 
deret, et omnem fidem veram atque 


Office of the Church to declare the Faith. 


the Greek Church:" “If there be,” saith he, “a true real 
difference between the Greeks and the Latins, about the 
point of the procession of the Holy Ghost, then either they 
or we be vere heretici, truly and indeed heretics.” And he 
speaks this of the old Greeks, long before any decision of the 
Church in this controversy: for his instance is in S. Basil, 
and Greg[ory] Nazianz[en] on the one side, and 8S. Jerome, 
Augustine, and Ambrose, on the other. ‘And who dares call 
any of these heretics?” is his challenge. I deny not, but 
that Scotus adds there, that howsoever this was before, yet 
ex quo, from the time that the Catholic Church declared it, 
it is to be held as of the substance of the faith. But this 
cannot stand with his former principle, if he intend by it, 
that whatsoever the Church defines, shall be ipso facto, and 
for that determination’s sake, fundamental. For if before 
the determination, supposing the difference real, some of 
those worthies were truly heretics, as he confesses, then 
somewhat made them so. And that could not be the decree 
of the Church, which then was not. Therefore it must be 
somewhat really false, that made them so; and funda- 
mentally false, if it made them heretics against the founda- 
tion. But Scotus was wiser than to intend this. It may 
be, he saw the stream too strong for him to swim against, 
therefore he went on with the doctrine of the time, That the 
Church’s sentence is of the substance of faith; but meant 
not to betray the truth. For he goes no further than 
ecclesia declaravit, “since the Church hath declared it,” 
which is the word that is used by divers.* 


subesse nequeat, quoniam est de 
objecto probato ab Ecclesia, fidei 


divinam includeret. Deinde ex eo, 
quod disertis verbis docet, neminem 


esse, qui non possit de sua gratia 
formidare. At qui habet certitudinem 
fidei non possit formidare: alioqui 
facit injuriam divine fidei. Tertio, 
quoniam omnis] fides divina [habet 
certitudinem fidei Catholics, fides 
enim non est certa, quia Catholica, 
sed quia divina.] Non [enim] ideo 
certitudinem παροὺ [fides,] quia toti 
Eeclesis communis est, sed quia 
nititur auctoritate Dei, qui nec falli, 
nec fallere, potest, cum sit ipsa 
veritas.—[Bellarmin.] de Justif. lib. 
lii. c. 3. [Op., tom. iv. col. 951. A. B.] 
—[At, inquit Catharinus, soli fidei 
Catholiczee convenit, ut et falsum 


autem divine particulari falsum sub- 
esse potest, quoniam est de objecto 
non probato ab Ecclesia. Respondeo, 
novam atque inauditam hanc esse 
doctrinam, ut fidei divinz possit 
subesse falsum, antequam ejus objec- 
tum probatum fuerit ab Ecclesia.] 
Probatio [enim] Ecclesiz facit, ut 
omnibus innotescat, objectum illud (se. 
fidei divinee) esse revelatum a Deo, et 
propter hoe certum et indubitatum ; 
non autem tribuit firmitatem verbo 
Dei aliquid revelantis.—Ibid. 

« Scotus in I. Sent. D[{istinct.] xi. 
Q{ueest.] 1. [ubi supra, p. 28. note *.] 

x Bellarm. de Concil. auctoritat. 


D2 


35 


SECTION 


36 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsner. 





Fundamentals are such, not because the Church declares 


VII.—Now the master’ teaches, and the scholars? too, that 
every thing which belongs to the exposition or declaration 
of another, intus est, is not another contrary thing, but is 
contained within the bowels and nature of that which is 
interpreted ; from which if the declaration depart, it is 
faulty and erroneous, because, instead of declaring, it gives 


another and contrary sense.* 


lib. ii. cap. 12. [Op., tom. ii. col. 86. 
C. At concilia non habent, neque scri- 
bunt immediatas revelationes, aut 
verba Dei, sed tantum declarant, 
quodnam sit verbum Dei scriptum, 
vel traditum, et quomodo intelligi 
debeat, et preeterea ex eo per ratio- 
cinationem deducunt conclusiones. 
Itaque] concilia cum definiunt, [qui 
sint libri canonici et divini,] non 
faciunt eos esse infallibilis veritatis, 
sed declarant [solum esse tales.]— 
| Heeretici multa que erant implicita 
fidei nostree, sua importunitate com- 
pulerunt] explicare.—Bonavent. in I. 
[Sentent.] Distinct. xi. Art. 1. Quest. 
1. [in conclus. ad vi. Op., tom. iv. p. 95. 
E. Ed. Mogunt. 1689.]—[ Ad secundum 
dicendum .. . Sequens concilium non 
faciebat aliud symbolum, quam pri- 
mum ; sed id quod implicite contine- 
batur in primo symbolo, per aliqua 
addita] explanabatur [contra heereses 
insurgentes. Unde in determinatione 
Chalcedonensis synodi dicitur, quod 
illi qui fuerunt congregati in concilio 
Constantinopolitano, doctrinam de 
Spiritu Sancto tradiderunt : non quod 
minus esset in precedentibus, qui 
apud Niceam congregati sunt, in- 
ferentes ; sed intellectum eorum 
adversus heereticos] declarantes. — 
Thom. [Aquin.] 1. [Summ.] Quest. 
xxxvi. Art. 2. in Conclus. Respons. ad 
2.—Et, [Ad primum dicendum.... 
necessaria fuit temporibus praeceden- 
tibus] explicatio [fidei contra insur- 
gentes errores.|—Thom, [Aquin.] Se- 
cund. Secund. Queest. i. Art. 10. 
in Conclus. Respons. ad 1.— Quid 
unquam aliud (Ecclesia) Conciliorum 
decretis enisa est, nisi ut quod antea 
simpliciter credebatur, hoe idem 
postea diligentius crederetur?—Vin. 
Lir. cont. Heer. c. xxxii. [p. 71. ed. 
Colon. 1585.] 

y [Petr. Lomb.] Sent. 1. Dfis- 
tinet.] xi. [Quicunque, inquiunt 
Greeci, a Filio Eum procedere addunt, 
anathema incurrunt: unde et nos 
arguunt anathematis reos.....In 


Therefore, when the Church 


symbolo enim Constantinopolitano, 
in processione Spiritus solus com- 
memoratur Pater.... Illud est sym- 
bolum, quod in missa_ cantatur, 
editum in Niceno concilio; in fine 
cujus subjunctum est, Qui aliud 
docuerit, vel aliter preedicaverit, ana- 
thema sit: ideoque Greeci nos anathe- 
matizatos dicunt, quia dicimus Spiri- 
tum Sanctum a Filio procedere, quod 
ibi non continetur....a Latinis est 
additum filiogue. Nos autem verba ita 
determinamus, Qui aliud docuerit, 
vel aliter preedicaverit, id est, con- 
trarium docuerit, vel contrario modo 
preedicaverit, anathema sit. <Aliud 
ergo posuit pro opposito, qualiter et 
Apost. in Epist. ad Galat. (i. 9.) 
Si quis aliud evangelizaverit, id est, 
contrarium, anathema sit. Non 
dicit, Si quis addiderit. Nam si illud 
diceret, sibi ipsi, ut ait Augustinus, 
prejudicaret, qui cupiebat venire ad 
quosdam quibus seribebat, sicut I. ad 
Thessalonien. (iii. 10.) ut suppleret 
que illorum fidei deerant. Sed qui 
supplet quod minus erat, addit : non 
quod inerat, tollit.—fol. 30. OC. ed. 
Paris. 1575.| 

7 Alb. Magn. ‘in I. Sentent. D[is- 
tinct.] xi. Art. 7. [Contrarium sacre 
Scripture quid sit. Deinde queeritur 
de his quod dicit, (Qui aliud docuerit, 
vel aliter preedicaverit, &c.) Ila enim 
expositio non videtur conveniens: 
quia non quodlibet aliud est con- 
trarium. Ad hoc dicendum, quod in 
expositionibus tenet talis ratio : Quod 
nihil aliud est nisi contrarium : 
omne enim quod pertinet ad declara- 
tionem intus est; et id quod non est 
intus contrarium est. Unde Ansel- 
mus, Omnis veritas Sacree Scripture 
veritas est quae Sacre Scripture non 
contradicit.—Seriptum primum Alb. 
Magn. Ratisbon. Episcop. in Sentent. 
libros, tom. i. ed. Basil. 1506.] 

“ Hoe [inquam,] semper, nee quic- 
quam preeterea—Vin. Lir. ¢c. xxxii. 
[p. 71.] 


them, but because of the nature of the Truth declared. 


declares any thing in a Council, either that which she de- 
clares was intus, or extra—in the nature and verity of the 
thing, or out of it. If it were extra, without the nature of 
the thing declared, then the declaration of the thing is false, 
and so, far from being fundamental in the faith.? If it 
were intus, within the compass and nature of the thing, 
though not open and apparent to every eye, then the 
declaration is true, but not otherwise fundamental than the 
thing is which is declared: for that which is intus, cannot 
be larger or deeper than that in which it is; if it were, it 
could not be intus. Therefore nothing is simply funda- 
mental because the Church declares it, but because it is so 


in the nature of the thing which the Church declares. 
VIII.—And it is aslight and poor evasion that is commonly 


used, that the declaration of 


θ In nova heresi veritas prius 
erat de fide, etsi non ita declarata.— 
[Joannes Duns] Scotus, [Doctor 
Subtil.] in 1. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] xi. 
Q[ueest.] i. in fine. [His words are: 
Multa igitur docuit eos, (sc. discipulos) 
Spiritus Sanctus, que non sunt 
scripta in Evangelio, et illa multa 
quedam per Scripturam, quedam 
per consuetudinem tradiderunt. Simi- 
liter diversa symbola diversis tempo- 
ribus sunt edita contra diversas 
hzereses de novo orientes, quia quando 
insurgebat nova heeresis, necessarlum 
erat declarare veritatem, contra quam 
erat illa heeresis: quee veritas, etsi 
prius erat de fide, non tamen erat 
prius tantum declarata, sicut tune 
contra errorem illorum, qui eam 
negabant.—Scoti Op., tom. v. p. 859. 
ed. Lugd. 1639.—Ad illud quod 
objicitur de conciliis, dicendum quod 
nec in conciliis illis sunt omnia 
instituta, quee spectant ad mores, nec 
etiam omnia dicta que ad fidem 
pertinent, sicut in Symbolo quod 
cantatur in missa nihil dicitur de 
descensu ad inferos. Sed nunquam 
latuit sanctos patres processio Spiri- 
tus Sancti a Filio: et si non latuit, 
quare non dixerunt? Credo quod non 
latuit, sicut per antiquos Greecorum, 
quorum Magister adducit auctorita- 
tem in litera: sed tamen non fuit 
expressum, quia non erat opus. 
Nullus enim negabat, nec negare 
volebat. Sed] heretici multa que 
erant implicita fidei nostra, [sua 
importunitate] compulerunt explicare. 


the Church makes it funda- 


—Bonavent. in I. [Sentent.] D[istinct. } 
xi. A[rt.] 1. Q[uzest ]1. [in conclus. ad 
vi.| ad finem. [Op., tom. iv. p. 95. 
—Apb sEcunpumM dicendum, quod in 
quolibet concilio, institutum  fuit 
symbolum aliquod propter errorem 
aliquem qui in concilio damnabatur. 
Unde sequens concilium non faciebat 
aliud symbolum quam primum, sed id 
quod implicite continebatur in primo 
symbolo, per aliqua addita explana- 
batur contra heereses insurgentes .... 
in tempore antiquorum conciliorum, 
nondum exortus fuerat error dicentium 
Spiritum Sanctum non procedere a 
Filio; non fuit necssarium quod hoc 
explicite poneretur. . . . Continebatur 
tamen implieite in hoe ipso, quod 
dicebatur Spiritus Sanctus a Patre 
procedere.] — Thom. [Aquin. Summ. ] 
i, Qfucest.| xxxvi. A[rt.] 2. [Resp.] 
ad 2. [Admonere tamen hic oportet, 
quod] quamvis Apostolica sedes, 
aut generale concilium de _heeresi 
censere possit, non tamen ideo 
assertio aliqua erit heresis, quia 
Ecclesia definivit, sed quia fidei 
Catholicze repugnat. Ecclesia siqui- 
dem sua definitione non facit talem 
assertionem esse heresim, quum, 
etiamsi ipsa non definivisset, esset 
heeresis ; sed id efficit [ecclesia] ut [πο- 
bis per suam censuram] pateat, [illud 
esse hzeresim, quod contra nos latebat 
an merito heeresis dici posset.] — 
Alphon. a Castro. Lfib.] i. Advers. 
Heeres. 6. viii. fol. 21. 1). [Op., col. 
49. E.] 


37 


SECTION 
ext 


38 


CONFERENCE 
WITH 
Fisuer. 


Deut. iv. 2. 


Therefore the Church cannot make Truths fundamental. 


mental guoad nos, “in respect of us;” for it doth not that 
neither : for no respect to us can vary the foundation. The 
Church’s declaration can bind us to peace and external 
obedience, where there is not express letter of Scripture and 
sense agreed on; but it cannot make anything fundamental 
to us, that is not so im its own nature. For if the Church 
can so add, that it can by a declaration make a thing to be 
fundamental in the faith, that was not; then it can take a 
thing away from the foundation, and make it, by declaring, 
not to be fundamental; which all men grant, no power of 
the Church can do. ¢“ For the power of adding anything 
contrary, and of detracting anything necessary, are alike 
forbidden,’* and alike denied. Now, nothing is more 
apparent than this to the eye of all men: That the Church 
of Rome hath determined, or declared, or defined (call it 
what you will), very many things, that are not in their own 
nature fundamental ; and therefore neither are, nor can. be, 
made so by her adjudging them. Now to all this discourse, 
That the Church hath not power to make anything funda- 
mental in the faith, that intrinsically and in its own nature 
is not such, A. C. is content to say nothing. 

IX.—2. For the second, That it is proved by this place of 
S. Augustine, “That all points defined by the Church are 
fundamental.” You might have given me that place cited in 
the margin, and eased my pains to seek it; but it may be 
there was somewhat in concealing it. For you do so extraor- 
dinarily “right this place,’ that you were loth (I think) any- 
body should see how you wrong it. The place of S. Augustine 
is this, agaist the Pelagians, about remission of original sin 
in infants: °“ This is a thing founded: an erring disputer 
is to be borne with in other questions not diligently digested, 


© Eeclesia non amputat necessaria, 
non apponit superflua. — Vin. Lir. 
Ὁ, XXxi[ip. 71] 

4 [Ministri Kcclesiz instituuntur 
in Ecclesia divinitus fundata et ideo 
institutio Ecclesiae preesupponitur ad 
operationem ministrorum.... ideo 
ad ministros Ecclesize novos articulos 
fidei edere, aut editos removere, aut 
nova sacramenta instituere, aut in- 
stituta removere non pertinet, sed hoe 
est potestatis excellentis que soli de- 
betur Christo, qui est Ecclesiz fun- 


damentum.|]—Thom. [Aquin.] Supp. 
[Tert. part. Summ.] Q[uest.] vi. A[rt. ] 
6. C. [Op., tom. ix.] 

ἐ Augustin. Serm. xiv. de Verb. 
Apost. c. 21.[Serm. cexciv. de Baptism. 
Parvul. cap. 21. (20.) in fin. Op., tom. v. 
col. 1193. F. ed. Benedict. Impetremus 
ergo, Si possumus, a fratribus nostris, ne 
nos insuper appellent hereticos, quod 
eos talia disputantes nos appellare 
possimus forsitan, si velimus, nec ta- 
men appellamus. Sustinent eos mater 
plis visceribus sanandos, portet docen- 


S. Augustine on the Church’s Authority in defining. 
iY y Y 


not yet made firm by full authority of the Church; there 
error is to be borne with; but it ought not to go so far that 
it should labour to shake the foundation itself of the 
Church.” This is the place; but it can never follow out of 
this place, I think, that every thing defined by the Church 
is fundamental. 

X.—For, first, he speaks of a “foundation of doctrine in 
Scripture,’ not “a Church definition.” This appears: for, 
few lines before, he tells us,! “ There was a question moved 
to 8. Cyprian, whether baptism was concluded to the eighth 
day, as well as circumcision? And no doubt was made then 
of the beginning of sin (orvigine peccati), and that out of this 
thing, about which no question was moved (ex ea re, unde 
nulla erat questio, soluta est exorta questio), that question 
that was made, was answered.” And again, “That 8S. Cy- 
prian took that which he gave in answer from the foundation 
of the Church, to confirm a stone that was shaking (Hoc de 
Jundamento Ecclesie sumpsit ad confirmandum lapidem nu- 


tantem).”’ Now 5. Cyprian, in all the answer that he gives,’ 


dos, ne plangat mortuos. Nimium 
est quo progrediuntur: multum est, 
vix ferendum est, magne patientiz 
adhuc ferri. Non abutantur hac 
patientia Ecclesiz ; corrigantur, bo- 
num est. Ut amici exhortamur, non 
ut inimici litigamus. Detrahunt 
nobis, ferimus: canoni non detra- 
hant, veritati non detrahant, Ecclesize 
Sanctz pro remissione peccati ori- 
ginalis parvulorum quotidie laboranti 
non contradicant.] Fundata [ista] res 
est. Ferendus est disputator errans 
in aliis queestionibus non diligenter 
digestis, nondum plena KEcclesise 
authoritate firmatis ; 101 ferendus est 
error: non tantum progredi debet, ut 
etiam fundamentum ipsum Hcclesiz 
quatere moliatur. 

f Ibid. cap. 20. [Ad hoe ergo lego 
sanctum Cyprianum, ut videatis quo- 
modo sit intellectus canonicus et ca- 
tholicus sensus in his verbis, que 
paulo ante tractavi. Interrogatus est, 
utrum infans baptizari debeat ante 
octavum diem: quia vetere lege non 
licebat cireumcidiinfantem, nisi octavo 
die. Quzestio inde erat nata, de die 
baptizandi: nam de origine peccati 
nulla erat queestio; et ideo ex ea re, 
unde nulla erat queestio, soluta est 
exorta questio. Sanctus Cyprianus 


dixit (in Epist. 59, ad Fidum,) inter 
ceetera, quee superius dixit: “ Propter 
quod neminem putamus, &e.” . . Videte 
quemadmodum de hae re nihil dubi- 
tans, solvit illam unde dubitabatur. 
Hoe de fundamento Ecclesize sumsit, 
ad confirmandum lapidem nutantem. 
—Ibid. col. 1193. B.] 

& [Propter quod neminem putamus 
a gratia consequenda impediendum 
esse ea lege que jam statuta est, nec 
spiritalem circumcisionem impediri 
carnali circumcisione debere, sed om- 
nem omnino hominem admittendum 
esse ad gratiam Christi, quando et 
Petrus in Actis Apostolorum (x. 28.) 
loquatur et dicat : Dominus mihi dixit 
neminem hominem communem dicen- 
dum et immundum. Ceeterum si 
homines impedire aliquid ad consecu- 
tionem gratiz possit, magis adultos 
et provectos et majores natu possent 
impedire peceata graviora. Porro au- 
tem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus 
et in Deum multum ante peccantibus, 
cum postea crediderint, remissa pecca- 
torum datur, et a baptismo atque a 
gratia nemo prohibetur, quanto magis 
prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens 
natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secun- 
dum Adam ecarnaliter natus contagium 
mortis antiquee prima nativitate con- 


39 


SECTION 
xe 


40 


That the Church’s Decisions are not to be opposed, 


Conrerence hath not one word of any definition of the Church: therefore 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


Rom. y. 15. 


j Tim. iii. 


ea res, “that thing” by which he answered, was a foundation 
of prime and settled Scripture doctrine, not any definition 
of the Church: therefore, that which he took out of the 
foundation of the Church, to fasten the stone that shook, 
was not a definition of the Church, but the foundation of the 
Church itself, the Scripture upon which it is builded: as 
appeareth in the Milevitane Council; where the rule, by 
which Pelagius was condemned, is the rule of Scripture ; 
therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense, that “the 
disputer is not to be borne any longer, that shall endeavour 
to shake the foundation itself, upon which the whole Church 
is grounded” (wt furdamentum ipsum Ecclesie quatere moliatur). 

XI.—Secondly, if 5. Augustine did mean by “founded,” 
and “foundation,” the definition of the Church, because of 
these words, “ This thing is founded ; this is made firm by full 
authority of the Church ;” and the words following these, 
“to shake the foundation of the Church ;” yet it can never 
follow, out of any or all these circumstances (and these are 
all), that all points defined by the Church are fundamental 
in the faith. For, first, no man denies but the Church is a 
foundation ; that things defined by it, are founded upon it: 
and yet hence it cannot follow, that the thing that is so 
founded is fundamental in the faith: for things may be 
founded upon human authority,’ and be very certain, yet not 


traxit, qui ad remissam peccatorum 
accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit 
quod illi remittuntur non propria, sed 
aliena, peccata.—S. Cyprian. Ep. lix. 
ad Fidum, de Infant. Baptizand. Op., 
p. 99. ed. Benedict.] 

" Concil. Milevitan. [a.p. 416.] 
C[anon.] ii. [Item placuit, ut quicun- 
que parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum 
baptizandos negat, aut dicit, in remis- 
sionem quidem peccatorum nos bapti- 
zari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere origi- 
nalis peccati, quod regenerationis 
lavacro expietur : unde fit consequens, 
ut in eis forma baptismatis in remis- 
sionem peccatorum, non vere, sed false, 
intelligatur, anathema sit. Quoniam 
non aliter intelligendum est, quod ait 
apostolus (Rom. vy. 18.) Perunum homi- 
nem peccatum intravit in mundum, et 
per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes 
homines pertransiit, in quo omnes pec- 


caverunt, nisi quemadmodum ecclesia 
catholica ubique diffusa semper intel- 
lexit. Propter hane enim regulam 
fidei, etiam parvuli, qui nihil pecca- 
torum in semetipsis adhuc committere 
potuerunt, ideo in peccatorum remis- 
sionem veraciter baptizantur, ut in eis 
regeneratione mundetur, quod genera- 
tione traxerunt.—Concil. tom. ii. col. 
1538. C.] 

* Mos fundatissimus.—S, Aug. Ep. 
28. [His words are: Sed contra Cypriani 
aliquam opinionem, ubi quod viden- 
dum fuit, fortasse non vidit, sentiat 
quisque quod libet; tantum contra 
apostolicam manifestissimam fidem 
nemo sentiat, quee ex unius delicto om- 
nes in condemnationem duci praedicat 
(Rom. v. 18); ex qua condemnatione 
non liberat, nisi gratia Dei per Jesum 
Christum Dominum nostrum, in quo 
uno omnes vivificantur, quicunque 


does not imply that they are Fundamentals. 


fundamental in the faith. Nor yet can it follow, This thing 
is founded : therefore every thing determined by the Church 
is founded. ‘Again: that which follows, That those things are 
not to be opposed which are made firm by full authority of 
the Church, cannot conclude they are therefore fundamental 
in the faith. For full Church authority (always the time 
that included the holy Apostles being passed by, and not 
comprehended in it) is but Church authority ; and Church 
authority, when it is at full sea, is not simply divine,* there- 
fore the sentence of it not fundamental in the faith. And 
yet no erring disputer may be endured to shake the founda- 
tion which the Church in council lays. But plain Scripture 
with evident sense, or a full demonstrative argument, must 
have room, where a wrangling and erring disputer may not 
be allowed it. And there is neither of these, but may 
convince the definition of the Council,' if it be ill founded. 
And the articles of the faith may easily prove it is not 
fundamental, if indeed and verily it be not so. 

XII.—And J have read somebody that says (is it not you ἢ) 
“that things are fundamental in the faith two ways:” one, 
in their matter—such as are all things which be so in them- 
selves ; the other, inthe manner—such as are all things that 
the Church hath defined and determined to be of faith: 
and that so, some things that are de modo, “ of the manner of 
being, are of faith.’ But in plain truth, this is no more than 
if you should say, some things are fundamental in the faith, 
and some are not. For, wrangle while you will, you shall 
never be able to prove that any thing which is but de modo, 


vivificantur. Contra Ecclesiz funda- monstratur, ut in dubium venire non 


tissimum morem nemo sentiat, ubi ad 
baptismum, si propter sola parvulorum 
corpora curreretur, baptizandi offe- 
rentur et mortui.—S. Augustin. liber 
ad Hieronym. seu Hpist. elxvi. (al. 
XXviii.) cap. 8. Op., tom. il. col. 593. 
B. ed. Benedict. | 

k Stapleton. Relect. Controv. iv. 
[de potestate ecclesiz in se], Q[ueest.] 
iii. [An vox determinantis Heclesize 
sit divina 1] A[rtic.]1. [Vox et deter- 
minatio ecclesize est swo modo divina. 
—Op., tom. i. p. 750.] 

1 | Apud vos autem, (sc. Manicheeos) 
ubi nihil horum est quod me inyvitet 
ac teneat, sola personat veritatis polli- 
citatio ;| que quidem, si tam manifesta 


possit, praeponenda est omnibus illis 
rebus, quibus in Catholica teneor.— 
S. Aug. contra [Epistolam Manichei, 
quam yocant] Fund{amenti,| cap. iv. 
[Op., tom. viii. col. 153. D. ed. Bene- 
dict.—Quod] si [forte] in Evangelio 
aliquid apertissimum [de Manichei 
apostolatu invenire potueris, infirmabis 
mihi Catholicorum auctoritatem, qui 
jubent ut tibi non credam; qua infir- 
mata, jam nec evangelio credere potero, 
quia per eos illi credideram ; ita nihil 
apud me valebit, quidquid inde protu- 
leris. Quapropter si nihil manifestum 
de Manichei apostolatu in Evangelio 
reperitur, Catholicis potius credain 
quam. tibi.—Ibid. cap. v. col. 154. Ο.] 


41 


SECTION 


Xe 


42 


Instanced in the Pelagian Controversy. 


Conrerence a consideration “ of the manner of being” only, can possibly 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


Ezek. xiii. 
Ua 

1 [will.... 
Edit. 
1686.] 


1 [the 

Church... 
Editt. 1673 
and 1686.] 


be fundamental in the faith. 

XIII.— And since you make such a foundation of this place, 
I will a little view the mortar with which it is laid by you. 
It is a venture but I shall’ find it “untempered.” Your asser- 
tion is: “ All points defined by the Church are fundamental.” 
Your proof, this place: “ Because that is not to be shaken, 
which is settled by full authority of the Church (plena eccle- 
sie authoritate.)’ Then it seems your meaning is, that this 
point there spoken of, “The remission of original sin in 
baptism of infants,” was defined, when 8. Augustine wrote 
this, by a full sentence of a General Council. First, if you 
say it was, Bellarmine! will tell you it is false; and that the 
Pelagian heresy was never condemned in an cecumenical 
council, but only in nationals. But Bellarmine is deceived : 
for while the Pelagians stood out impudently against national 
councils, some of them defended Nestorius, which gave 
occasion to the first Ephesine Council to excommunicate 
and depose them.™ And yet this will not serve your turn for 
this place. For 5. Augustine was then dead; and therefore 
could not mean the sentence of that Council in this place. 
Secondly, if you say it was not then defined in an cecume- 
nical synod ; plena authoritas ecclesie, “ the full authority of 
the Church,” there mentioned, doth not stand properly for 
the decree of an cecumenical council, but for some national ; 
as this was condemned in a national council : and then the 
full authority of the Church here, is no more than the full 
authority of this' Church of Africa.° And I hope that 


m Lib. ii. de Concil. Auctorit. cap. v. 
{Secundo, idem (sc. concilia particula- 
ria a summo pontifice confirmata, in 
fide et moribus errare non posse) 
probatur ex eo, quod si ejusmodi con- 
cilia errare possent, plurimee heereses, 
quae damnatz sunt] a solis [conciliis] 
particularibus, [iterum revocari pos- 


sent in dubium, ut Pelagianorum, Pri- 


scillianistarum, Joviniani et aliorum. 
—Bellarmin. Op., tom. ii. col. 59. B.] 

" Can. i. Niv. [εἴτις 6 μητροπολίτης 
τῆς ἐπαρχίας, ἀποστατήσας τῆς aylas 
καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου, προσέθετο τῷ 
τὴς ἀποστασίας συνεδρίῳ, ἢ μετὰ τοῦτο 
προστεθείῃ, ἢ τὰ Ἱκελεστίου ἐφρόνησεν, 
ἢ φρονήση, οὗτος κατὰ τῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας 
ἐπισκύπων διαπράττεσθαι τι οὐδαμῶς δυ- 


νάται, πάσης ἐκκλησιαστικῆς κοινωνίας 
ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη ὑπὸ τοῦ συνόδου ἐκβεβλη- 
μένος, καὶ ἀνενέργητος ὑπάρχων" ἀλλὰ 
καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόποις, 
καὶ τοῖς πέριξ μητροπολίταις, τοῖς τὰ 
τῆς ὑρθοδοξίας φρονοῦσιν ὑποκείσεται, 
εἰς τὸ πάντῃ καὶ τοῦ βαθμοῦ τῆς ἐπισκο- 
πῆς exBAnOnvat.—Can. i.—ei δέ τινες 
ἀποστατήσαιεν τῶν κληρικῶν, καὶ τολ- 
μήσαιεν ἢ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἢ δημοσίᾳ τὰ Νεσ- 
τορίου ἢ τὰ Κελεστίου φρονῆσαι, καὶ 
τούτους εἴναι καθῃρημένους ὑπὸ τῆς 
ἁγίας συνόδου δεδικαίωται.--- Δ. iv.— 
Concil. (an. 431.) tom. iii. col. 803, 
806.] 

® Concil. Milevit. Can, ii. [ubi sup. 
p. 40. note +] 

P Nay, if your own Cappellus be true, 


The Church founded upon the Faith. 


authority doth not make all pomts defined by it to be funda- 
mental. You will say, yes, if that council be confirmed by 
the Pope. And then I must ever wonder why 8. Augustine 
should say, “the full authority of the Church ;’ and not 
bestow one word upon the Pope, by whose authority only 
that Council, as all other, have their fulness of authority, in 
your judgment. An inexpiable omission, if this doctrine 
concerning the Pope were true. 


Srcrron 
X. 


D> 


9 


XIV.—But here A. C. steps in again to help the Jesuit, and A.C. p. 45. 


he tells us, over and over again, “ that all points made firm by 
full authority of the Church, are fundamental ;” so, “ firm” 
he will have them, and therefore “fundamental.” But I 
must tell him, that first, it is one thing in nature, and religion 
too, to be firm, and another thing to be fundamental. These 
two are not convertible: it is true that every thing that is 
fundamental is firm; but it doth not follow that every thing 
that is firm is fundamental. For many a superstructure is 
exceeding firm, being fast and close joined to a sure founda- 
tion, which yet no man will grant is fundamental. Besides, 
whatsoever is fundamental in the faith is fundamental to the 
Church, which is “one by the unity of faith.”4 Therefore, if 
every thing defined by the Church be fundamental in the 
faith, then the Church’s definition is the Church’s foundation. 
And so, upon the matter, the Church can lay her own foun- 
dation ; and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect 
being before so much as her foundation is laid. Now this 
is so absurd for any man of learning to say, that by and by 
after A. C. is content to affirm not only that the prima cre- 
dibilia, the articles of faith, but “all which so pertains to 
supernatural, divine, and infallible Christian faith, as that 
thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts, &c. is the foundation 
of the Church under Christ the prime foundation.” And 
here he is out again. For, first, all which pertains to superna- 
tural, divine, and infallible Christian faith, is not by and by 


—De Appell. Eccl. Afric. ¢. ii. n. 5,— 
it was buta provincial of Numidia, not 
a plenary of Africa. [Concilium Mile- 
vitanum, eo quod ad Romanum ponti- 
ficem Innocentium de heeresi Pelagiana 
tune orienti fratres scripsere, fuisse 
provinciale Numidize, et non plena- 
rium Africe, scribunt patres ipsi ad 


caput Epistole sue: Hee ad sancti- 
tatem tuam, &c.—pp. 20, 21. ed. 
Rome, 1722.] 

4 Almain. in III. Sent. Distinct. 
xxv. Quest. 1. [Conel. 3. fol. Ixxix. 
ed. Lugd. 1527.) A fide enim una 
Keclesia dicitur una. 


44 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FisHer. 


A.C. p. 45. 


Faith objective as distinct from subjective. 


fundamental in the faith to all men." And secondly, the 
whole discourse here is concerning faith, as it is taken 
objective, for the object of faith and thing to be believed; but 
that faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts is 
taken subjective, for the habit and act of faith. Now to 
confound both these in one period of speech, can have no 
other aim than to confound the reader. But to come closer 
both to the Jesuit and his defender A. C.: if all points made 
firm by full authority of the Church be fundamental, then 
they must grant that every thing determined by the Council 
of Trent is fundamental in the faith. For with them it is 
firm and catholic which that Council decrees. Now that 
Council decrees, “That orders collated by the bishop are 
not void, though they be given without the consent or calling 
of the people, or of any secular power.”* And yet they can 
produce no author that ever acknowledged this definition of 
the Council fundamental in the faith. It is true, I do not 
grant that the decrees of this Council are made by full 
authority of the Church: but they do both grant and main- 
tain it; and therefore it is argumentum ad hominem, a good 
argument against them, that a thing so defined may be firm, 
for so this is; and yet not fundamental, for so this is not. 
XV.—But A. C. tells us further, “That if one may deny, 
or doubtfully dispute against, any one determination of the 
Church, then he may against another, and another, and so 
against all; since all are made firm to us by one and the 


τ [Responp. Dicendum quod] ad 
fidem pertinet aliquid dupliciter. Uno 
modo directe, sicut ea que nobis sunt 
principaliter divinitus tradita, ut 
Deum esse trinum [et unum, Filium 
Dei esse incarnatum, et hujusmodi.] 
Et circa hee opinari falsum hoc ipso 
inducit heeresim ; [maxime si pertina- 
cia adjungatur.| Jndirecte [vero ad 
fidem pertinent ea] ex quibus conse- 
quitur aliquid contrarium fidei ; [sicut 
Si quis diceret, Samuelem non fuisse 
filium Helcanz ; ex hoe enim sequi- 
tur, Scripturam divinam esse falsam. 
Circa hujusmodi ergo, | absque periculo 
heeresis, aliquis falsum potest opinari 
{antequam consideretur vel determina- 
tum sit, quod ex hoe sequitur aliquid 
contrarium fidei, et maxime si non 
pertinaciteradhereat. Sed postquam 
manifestum est, et praecipue si sit per 


ecclesiam determinatum, quod ex hoe 
sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, in 
hoc errare non esset absque heresi. | 
—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] pfars.] 1. 
Q[uzest.] xxxii. A[rt.] 4. [in conclus. } 
—There are things necessary to the 
faith ; and things which are but 
accessory, &c. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. 
Book iii. ch. fii, [4. Works, vol. i. 
p. 450. ed. Keble.—His words are: 
It is not that we make some things 
necessary, some things accessory and 
appendent only: for our Lord and 
Saviour Himself doth make that dif- 
ference, &c.] 

* Si quis dixerit . . . ordines ab epi- 
scopis collatos, sine populi vel potes- 
tatis seecularis consensu aut vocatione, 
irritos esse, ... Anathema sit.—[De- 
cret.] Con. Trid. Sess. xxiii. [die xy, 
Julii, an. mpix1it.] Can. 7. 


The Vincentian Rule of Fundamentals. 


same Divine revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the 
same full authority of the Church, which being weakened in 
any one, cannot be firm in any other.” First, A. C. might 
have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this 
out of Vin. Lir.t And as that learned father uses it, I 
subscribe to it, but not as A.C. applies it. For Vincentius 
speaks there de catholico dogmate, “of catholic maxims ;” and 
A. C. will force it to every determination of the Church. 
Now catholic maxims, which are properly fundamental," are 
certain prime truths deposited with the Church, and not so 
much determined by the Church as published and mani- 
fested, and so made firm by her to us. For so Vincentius 
expressly.* Where, all that the Church doth, is but ut hoc 
idem quod antea, “that the same thing may be believed which 
was before believed,” but with more light and clearness, and, 
in that sense, with more firmness than before. Now, in 
this sense, give way to a disputator errans, “ every cavilling 
disputer,” to deny or quarrel at the maxims of Christian reli- 
gion, any one, or any part of any one of them; and why 
may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other, till 
he have shaken all? But this hinders not the Church 
herself, nor any appointed by the Church, to examine her 
own decrees, and to see that she keep dogmata deposita, the 
principles of faith unblemished and uncorrupted. For if she 
do not so, but that novitia veteribus,y “new doctrines” be 


Ὁ (Vincent. Lirinens.] Cont. Heer. 
6. xxxi. Abdicata etenim qualibet 
parte Catholici dogmatis, alia quoque, 
atyue item alia, [ac deinceps alia, et 
alia jam quasi ex more et licito abdi- 
cabuntur. Porro autem singulatim 
partibus repudiatis,] quid aliud ad 
extremum sequetur, nisi ut totum 
pariter repudietur ?—]p. 70. | 

Ὁ [V. infra,] Sect. xxxviii. 21. 

x (Christi vero] Ecclesia, [sedula et 
cauta | depositorum apud se dogmatum 
custos, [nihil in iis unquam permutat, 
nihil minuit, nihil addit ; non amputat 
necessaria, non apponit superflua, non 
amittit sua, non usurpat aliena: sed 
omni industria hoc unum studet, ut 
vetera fideliter sapienterque tractando, 
si quee sunt illa antiquitus informata 
et inchoata, accuret et poliat: si qua 
jam expressa et enucleata, consolidet, 
firmet: si qua jam confirmata et de- 


finita, custodiat.] Denique quid un- 
quam f[aliud] Conciliorum decretis 
enisa est, nisi, ut quod antea simpli- 
ter credebatur, hoc idem postea dili- 
gentius crederetur ? [quod antea len- 
tius preedicabatur hoe idem postea 
instantius preedicaretur? quod antea 
securius colebatur, hoc idem postea 
sollicitius excoleretur?]— Vin. Lir. 
cont. Heeres. c. xxxii. [p. 71.] 

y Vin. Lir. cont. Heres. cap. xxxi. 
[Sed et e contra, si novitia veteribus, 
extranea domesticis, et profana sacratis 
admisceri coeperint, proserpat hic mos 
in universum necesse est, ut nihil 
posthae apud ecclesiam relinquatur 
intactum, nihil illibatum, nihil inte- 
grum, nihil immaculatum, sed sit 
ibidem deinceps]impiorum ac turpium 
errorum lupanar, ubi erat ante caste 
et incorrupte sacrarium veritatis.— 


(Ibid. p. 70.] 


45 


SECTION 


40 


Grounds of Belief in Church Decisions, various. 


ConrenryoE added to the old,” the Church, which is sacrarium veritatis, 


WITH 
FisHeEr. 


A.C. p. 46. 


1 [be cer- 
tain but so, 
...- Hditt. 
1673 and 
1686.] 


“the repository of verity,” may be changed ta lupanar errorum; 
Τ am loth to English it. By the Church, then, this may—nay 
it ought to be done; however, every wrangling disputer may 
neither deny, nor doubtfully dispute, much less obstinately 
oppose, the determinations of the Church; no, not where they 
are not dogmata deposita, these “deposited principles.” But 
if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the determinations 
of the Church, yet that may be done without shaking the 
foundation, where the determinations themselves belong but 
to the fabric, and not to the foundation. For a whole frame 
of building may be shaken, and yet the foundation, where 
it is well laid, remain firm. And therefore, after all, A. C. 
dares not say the foundation is shaken, but only in a sort. 
And then it is as true, that in a sort it is not shaken. 
XVI.—2. For the second part of his argument, A. C. must 
pardon me if I dissent from him. For, first, all determinations 
of the Church are not made firm to us by one.and the same 
Divine revelation. For some determinations of the Church are 
made firm to us per chirographum Scripture,’ “by the hand- 
writing of the Scripture,” and that is authentical imdeed. 
Some other decisions, yea, and of the Church too, are made, 
or may be (if Stapleton* inform us right,) without an evident, 
nay without so much as a probable, testimony of Holy Writ. 
But Bellarmine? falls quite off in this, and confesses in 
express terms, “ That nothing can be certain by certainty of 
faith, unless it be contained immediately in the word of 
God, or be deduced out of the word of God by evident 
consequence.” And if nothing can be so certain,’ then 
certainly no determination of the Church itself, if that 
determination be not grounded upon one of these—either 
express word of God, or evident consequence out of it. So 


7 Vin. Lir. cont. Heres. cap. 
xxxii. [Conciliorum suorum decretis 
Catholica perfecit Ecclesia, nisi ut 
quod prius a majoribus sola (al. sua) 
traditione susceperat, hoe deinde 
posteris etiam per Scripture chiro- 
graphum consignaret.—pp. 71, 72.] 

* Relect. Cont. iv. Q[ueest.] i. Art. 
8. Etiamsi nullo Scripturarum, aut 
evidenti, aut probabili testimonio, 
&c.—[ubi sup. p. 32. note ™.] 


> Non potest aliquid certum esse 
certitudine fidei, nisi, aut immediate 
contineatur in verbo Dei, aut ex 
verbo Dei per evidentem consequen- 
tiam deducatur: [fides enim non est, 
nisi verbi divini auctoritate nitatur. 
Neque de hoe principio vel Catholici 
vel heeretici dubitant.]— Bellarmin. 
de Justificat. Lib. iii. cap. 8. ὃ 2. 
[Op., tom. iv. col. 963.] 


The Authority of the Church's Decisions admits of Degrees. 


here is little agreement in this great point between Stapleton 
and Bellarmine. Nor can this be shifted off, as if Staple- 
ton spake of the word of God written, and Bellarmine of 
the word of God unwritten, as he calls tradition. For 
Bellarmine treats there of the knowledge which a man hath 
of the certainty of his own salvation. And I hope A.C. 
will not tell us, there is any tradition extant unwritten, 
by which particular men may have assurance of their several 
salvations. Therefore Bellarmine’s whole disputation there 
is quite beside the matter; or else he must speak of the 
written word, and so lie cross to Stapleton, as is mentioned. 
But to return: If A. C. will, he may, but I cannot, believe 
that a definition of the Church which is made by the 
express word of God, and another which is made without 
so much as a probable testimony of it, or a clear deduction 
from it, are made firm to us by one and the same Divine 
revelation. Nay, I must say in this case, that the. one 
determination is firm by Divine revelation, but the other hath 
no Divine revelation at all, but the Church’s authority only. 

2. Secondly, I cannot believe either, “That all deter- 
minations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and 
the same full authority of the Church.” For the authority 
of the Church, though it be of the same fulness in regard of 
itself, and of the power which it commits to General Councils 
lawfully called; yet it is not always of the same fulness of 
knowledge and sufficiency, nor of the same fulness of con- 
science and integrity, to apply dogmata fidei, that which is 
dogmatical in the faith. For instance, I think you dare not 
deny but the Council of Trent was lawfully called; and yet I 
am of opinion that few, even of yourselves, believe that the 
Council of Trent hath the same fulness with the Council of 
Nice, in all the forenamed kinds or degrees of fulness. 
Thirdly, suppose that all determinations of the Church 
are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation, 
and sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority ; 
yet it will not follow, that they are all alike fundamental in 
the faith. For I hope A. C. himself will not say, that the 
definitions of the Church are in better condition than the 
propositions of Canonical Scripture. Now, all propositions 
of Canonical Scripture are alike firm, because they all alike 


47 


SEcTION 


48 


Even express Declarations of Scripture are not all Fundamentals. 


Conrerence proceed from Divine Revelation; but they are not all alike 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


Matt. iv. 


19. 
Matt. xvi. 
mil 


Ν 


[Α. C. pp. 
45, 46.] 


fundamental in the faith. For this proposition of Christ to 
S. Peter and 5. Andrew, “ Follow Me, and I will make you 
fishers of men,” is as firm a truth as that which He delivered 
to His disciples, “that He must die, and rise again the third 
day.” For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation, 
out of the mouth of our Saviour, and both are sufficiently 
applied by one and the same full authority of the Church, 
which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be 
canonical and infallible Scripture. And yet both these 
propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the faith. 
For I dare say, no man shall be saved, in the ordinary way 
of salvation, that believes not the death and the resurrection 
of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say, that no man 
shall be saved into whose capacity it never came, that 
Christ made δ. Peter and 8. Andrew fishers of men. And yet 
should he say it, nay, should he show it sub annulo piscatoris, 
no man will believe it that hath not made shipwreck of his 
common notions. Now if it be thus between proposition and 
proposition issuing out of Christ’s own mouth, I hope it 
may well be so also between even just and true determina- 
tions of the Church, that, supposing them alike true and 
firm, yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all men’s 
belief. 


f. Secondly, I required to know, what points the Bishop 
would account* fundamental. He said, all the points 
of [in] thet Creed were such.... 


* [The Chaplain granteth, that there are gquedam prima credibilia, or some 
prime principles, in the bosom whereof all other articles lay wrapped and 
folded up, so as every point of the Creed is not a prime foundation; and there- 
fore the 88. himself did not understand the word “fundamental ” so strictly, 
as if that which in one respect is “a foundation,” may not in another respect, 
to wit, as included in, and depending upon, a more prime principle, be 
accounted “a superstructure.”— A. C. marg. note to p. 45.] 

t [If the %. mean, that only those points are fundamental, which are ex- 
pressed in the Creed of the Apostles, I marvel how he can afterwards account 
Scriptures, whereof no express mention is made in the Creed, to be the founda- 
tion of their faith. But if he mean, that not only those are fundamental which 
are expressed, but also all that is enfolded in the articles of the Creed, then, 
not Scriptures only, but some at least of Church-traditions unwritten may be 
accounted fundamental—to wit, all those that are inwrapped in these two 
articles, “I believe in the Holy Ghost,” “The Holy Catholic Church ;” as 
all those are, which being first revealed by the Holy Ghost unto the apostles, 
have been by successive tradition of the Church, assisted by the same Holy 
Ghost, delivered unto us. One of which is, That the books of Scriptures 
themselves be Divine, and infallible in every part: which is a foundation so 


͵ 


The Creed Fundamental. 


necessary, as, if it be doubtfully questioned, all the faith built upon Scripture 
falleth to the ground. And therefore I marvel how the 3%. can say, as he doth 
afterwards in the Relation, “That Scriptures only, and not any unwritten 
Tradition, was the foundation of their faith.”—A. C. marg. note. to p. 46.] 

%. I.—Against this I hope you except not. For since 
the fathers* make the Creed the rule of faith; since “the 
agreeing sense of Scripture with those articles are the two 
regular precepts by which a divine is governed about the 
faith ;”¢ since your own Council of Trent ὁ decrees, “That it 
is that principle of faith, in which all that profess Christ do 
necessarily agree, et fundamentum firmum et unicum, not the 
firm alone, but the only, foundation ;” since it is excom- 
munication! ipso jure, for any man to contradict the articles 
contained in that Creed ; since the whole body of the faith is 
so contained in the Creed, as that the substance’ of it was 
believed even before the coming of Christ, though not so 





© Tertull. Apol. contra Gentes, cap. 
xlvii. [Expedite autem przescribimus 
adulteris nostris, illam esse regulam 
veritatis, quee veniat a Christo, trans- 
missa per comites ipsius, quibus ali- 
quanto posteriores diversi isti com- 
mentatores probabuntur.—Op., p. 37. 
B. ed. Rigalt.]| And [Regula quidem 
fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis, 
et irreformabilis.—Id.] de virg. vel. 
cap. i. [Op., p. 173. A.|—S. Augustin. 
Serm. xy. [xix.] de Temp. cap. 2. 
{Nam quomodo in regula fidei con- 
fiteremur, credere nos in Filium Dei 
qui natus est ex virgine Maria, si non 
Filius Dei, sed filius hominis natus est 
ex virgine Maria? &c.—Serm. ¢elxxxvi. 
cap. 2. Op., tom. v. col. 885. D.]— 
Ruffin. [Exposit.] in Symbol. apud 
[Opuse. vulgo] S. Cyprian. [adscript. 
p. excvili. ad ealcem ed. Benedict.] 
Discessuri (se. Apostoli) ab invicem 
normam prius future preedicationis in 
commune constituunt..... Omnes 
ergo in uno positi, et Spiritu Sancto 
repleti, breve istud futuree sibi preedi- 
cationis indicium, conferendo in unum 
quod sentiebat unusquisque, compo- 
nunt : atque hance credentibus dandam 
esse regulam statuunt. Symbolum 
autem hoe multis et justissimis ex 
causis appellari voluerunt. | 

4 Alb. Magnus. in I. Sentent. 
D{istinct.] xi. Afrt.] 7. [Queeritur 
etiam que sit fidei regula quam tangit 
(sc. Mag. Sentent.) ibi, (Qui autem 
preetergreditur fidei regulam non ince- 
dit in via, &c.) Ht dicendum quod 
regula fidei est concors Scripturarum 

VOL. II.— LAUD. 


sensus cum articulis fidei: quia illis 
duobus regularibus preceptis regitur 
theologus. | 

© Concil. Trident. Sess. 3. [Vide 
infra, p. 50. note *.] 

f Bonavent. ibid. [ie. in I. Sen- 
tent. Distinct xi. Art. 1.] Dub. 2. et 3. 
in literam. [Op., tom. iv. p. 93. D. 
Exponit ista verba (Qui aliud do- 
cuertt, vel aliter predicaverit) id est, 
contrarium docuerit, vel contrario 
modo, &c. Non yidetur ista expositio 
probabilis, eo quod ille qui contradicit 
articulis excommunicatus est ipso 
jure: ergo non oportebat pro contrario 
dare sententiam: ergo videtur quod 
pro diverso tulerunt sententiam ... 
Respondeo.... secundum veritatem 
autem excommunicationis sententia 
non se extendit nisi ad contradi- 
centes...]| 

s Thom. [Aquin.]Secund. Secunde, 
Q[uest.] i, Art. 7. C. [Responpzo, 
dicendum, quod ita se habent in 
doctrina articuli fidei, sicut prin- 
cipia per se nota in doctrina, que per 
rationem naturalem habetur, in 
quibus principiis ordo quidam inve- 
nitur, ut quedam in aliis implicite 
contineantur...... Similiter omnes 
articuli implicite continentur in 
aliquibus primis credibilibus, scilicet 
ut credatur Deus esse.... In esse 
enim divino includuntur omnia que 
credimus in Deo eternaliter existere 
τ Sic ergo dicendum est, quod 
quantum ad substantiam articulorum 
fidei, non est factum eorum argumen- 
tum per temporum successionem, 


E 


49 


SEcTIon 
ΧΩ 


§ 11. 


50 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsHer. 


1 John iv. 
9 


ae 


Heb. xi. 6. 


A.C. p. 46. 


Both the Creed, and the Belief that 


expressly as since in the number of the articles; since 
Bellarmine" confesses, that “all things simply necessary 
for all men’s salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue ;” 
what reason can you have to except? And yet for all this, 
everything fundamental is not of a lke nearness to the 
foundation, nor of equal primeness in the faith. And my 
granting the Creed to be fundamental, doth not deny but 
that there are guedam prima credibilia; “certain prime 
principles of faith,’ im the bosom whereof all other articles 
lay wrapped and folded up. One of which since Christ, is that 
of 5. John: “ Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come 
in the flesh is of God.” And one, both before the coming 
of Christ and since, is that of S. Paul: “ He that comes to 
God, must believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder of 
them that seek Him.” 

Il.—Here A. C. tells you, “That either I must mean that 
those points are only fundamental which are expressed in 
the Creed ; or those also which are enfolded. If I say those 
only which are expressed, then,” saith he, “to believe the 
Scriptures is not fundamental, because it is not expressed. 
If I say those which are enfolded in the articles, then some 
unwritten Church traditions may be accounted funda- 
mental.” The truth is, I said, and say still, that all the 
points of the Apostles’ Creed, as they are there expressed, 
are fundamental. And therein I say no more than some of 
your best learned have said before me. But I never either 
said or meant, that they only are fundamental: that they are 
fundamentum unicum,* “the only foundation,” is the Council 


quia queecunque posteriores credide- 
runt, continebantur in fide preeceden- 
tium patrum. Sed quantum ad 
explicationem crevit numerus articu- 
lorum, quia queedam explicite cognita 
sunt a posterioribus, que a prioribus 
non cognoscebantur explicite. ] 

h Bellarmin. lib. iv. de verb. Dei 
non script. cap. xi. Primum est, 
[queedam in doctrina Christiana tam 
fidei, quam morum, esse simpliciter 
omnibus necessaria ad salutem, qualis 
est notitia articuloruam Symboli Apo- 
stolici, item cognitio decem preecepto- 
rum, et nonnullorum Sacramentorum. 
Ceetera non ita necessaria sunt, ut 
sine eorum explicita notitia, et fide, 


et professione homo salvari non 
possit, modo promptam habeat volun- 
tatem ea suscipiendi, et credendi, 
quando sibi fuerint legitime per 
Eeclesiam proposita.—Op., tom. i. 
col. 201. B.] 

i Tho. Secund. Secundz, Queest. i. 
Art. 7. C. [ubi sup. p. 49. note &.] 

k Cone. Trident. Sess. 3. [Quare 
symbolum fidei, quo Sancta Romana 
Ecclesia utitur, tanquam principium 
illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi 
profitentur, necessario conveniunt, ac 
fundamentum firmum et unicum, con- 
tra quod porte inferi, &c. totidem 
verbis, quibus in omnibus ecclesiis 
legitur, exprimendum esse censuit.] 


Scripture is the Word of God, Fundamental. 51 


of Trent’s; it is not mine. Mine is, That the belief of Srcrion 
Scripture to be the word of God and infallible, is an equal, ae 
or rather a preceding, prime principle of faith, with or to the 

whole body of the Creed. And this agrees (as before I told 

the Jesuit), with one of your own great masters, Albertus 
Magnus,' who is not far from that proposition in terminis. 

So here the very foundation of A. C.’s dilemma falls off. 

For I say not, That only the points of the Creed are funda- 
mental, whether expressed or not expressed. That all of 

them are, that I say. And yet, though the foundation of 

his dilemma be fallen away, I will take the boldness to tell 

A.C. that if I had said, That those articles only which are 
expressed in the Creed are fundamental, it would have been 

hard to have excluded the Scripture, upon which the Creed 

itself in every point is grounded. For nothing is supposed 

to shut out its own foundation. And if I should now say, 

That some articles are fundamental which are enfolded in the 

Creed, it would not follow that therefore some unwritten 
traditions were fundamental. Some traditions I deny not 

true and firm, and of great, both authority and use in the 
Church, as being apostolical, but yet not fundamental in the 

faith. And it would be a mighty large fold, which should 

lap up traditions within the Creed. As for that tradition, 

That the books of Holy Scriptures are divine and infallible 

in every part, I will handle that when I come to the proper 
place™ for it. 

¥. I asked how then it happened, as’ M. Rogers saith, [4.C-.p.46.] 


That the English Church is not yet resolved what is Nice ἼΩΝ 


the right sense of the article of Christ’s descending 
into hell. 


%. I—The English Church never made doubt, that 1 § 12. 
know, what was the sense of that article. The words are so 
plain, they bear their meaning before them. She was content 
to put that article among those to which she requires sub- Att. iii. 
scription, not as doubting of the sense, but to prevent the 


1Tn I.Sentent. D[istinct.]xi. A[rt.]7. duobus regularibus preeceptis regitur 
Regula fidei est concors Scripturarum  theologus.—([ubi sup. p. 49. note “.} 
sensus cum articulis fidei: quia illis m [Vide infra,] sect. xvi. 1. 


E2 


52 


~ 


The Article of the Descent into Hell 


Corrgrence cavils of some, who had been too busy in crucifying that 


WITH 
FISHER. 


article, and in making it all one with the article of the Cross, 
or but an exposition of it. 

II.—And surely, for my part, I think the Church of England 
is better resolved of the right sense of this article than the 
Church of Rome, especially if she must be tried by her 
writers, as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers. 
For you cannot agree whether this article be a mere tradi- 
tion, or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it. 
Scotus” and Stapleton? allow it no footing in Scripture; but 
Bellarmine? is resolute that this article is everywhere in 
Scripture, and Thomas‘ grants as much for the whole Creed. 
The Church of England never doubted it, and 8S. Augustine’ 





proves it. 


III.—And yet, again, you are different for the sense. For 
you agree not whether the soul of Christ, in ¢riduo mortis, “in 


" Scotus in I.’ (Sentent.] D[istinct.] 
xi. Q[ueest.|1. [Op., tom. v. p. 589. Ad 
rationem illam de Evangelio, dico 
quod Christum descendisse ad inferna, 
non docetur in Evangelio: et tamen 
tenendum est sicut articulus fidei, quia 
ponitur in Symbolo Apostolorum. | 

© Stapleton, Relect. Controv. [Con- 
troy.] v. [de potestate ecclesize ex parte 
objecti,] Qfueest.] 5. Afrt.J1. [Op., 
tom. i. p.790. Sententia orthodoxa, 
in respons. ad arg. 5. (sc. apostoli 
omnem fidei doctrinam preedicarunt, 
ergo et scripserunt. Alioqui poste- 
ritati fidelium consulere aut invidi 
potuerunt, aut negligentes omiserunt. 
Utrumque absurdum. Ergo &c.)... 
Symbolum fidei de fide tenemus: 
aliqua tamen in illo sunt quee Scrip- 
tura tacet, ut Christum descendisse ad 
inferos, esse Ecclesiam Catholicam et 
Apostolicam, esse communionem sanc- 
torum. | 

P Bellarm. {lib.Jiv. de Christo, []. e. 
de Christi anima,| cap. 6,12. [Op., 
tom. i. col. 438. (Cap. vi.) Queeritur se- 
cundo, an et quomodo Christus ad 
inferos descenderit. Ac primum om- 
nes conyeniunt, quod Christus aliquo 
modo ad inferos descenderit. Nam et 
Scripturee passim hoe docent, ut Act. 
ii.: Non derelinques animam meam 
in inferno. Et Ephes. iv.: Descendit ad 
inferos terre. Kt preeterea in Symbolo 
Apostolico legimus: Descendit ad in- 
JSeros.— (Cap. xii.) Quantum ad tertium 


probo ex Scripturis Christum vere 
descendisse ad inferos. se. Ps. evii. 16. 
Heclus. xxiv. 45. (Vulg.) Mat. xii. 40. 
Act. ii. 81. Rom. x.7. Ephes. iv. 9.] 

4 Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. 
Q[ueest.] i. A[rt.] 9. Ap primum [ergo 
dicendum, quod veritas fidei in sacra 
Scriptura diffuse continetur, et variis 
modis, et in quibusdam obscure, ita 
quod ad eliciendam fidei veritatem 
ex sacra Scriptura requiritur longum 
studium et exercitium, ad quod non 
possunt pervenire omnes illi quibus 
necessarium est cognoscere fidei veri- 
tatem. | 

τ §. Aug. Ep. xcix. [ad Evodium, 
Ep. clxiv. cap.4. Op., tom. ii. col. 573. 
Queestio quam mihi proposuisti ex 
epistola apostoli Petri, solet nos, ut te 
latere non arbitror, vehementissime 
commovere, quomodo illa verba accipi- 
enda sunt tanquam de inferis dicta. . .. 
(Cap 5.) Quamobrem teneamus firm- 
issime, quod fides habet fundatissima 
auctoritate firmata, guia Christus mor- 
tuus est secundum Scripturas, et quia 
sepultus est, et quia resurrexit tertia 
die secundum Scripturas, et cetera 
quee de Ilo testatissima veritate con- 
scripta sunt. In quibus etiam hoc est, 
quod apud inferos fuit, solutisque 
eorum doloribus, quibus Eum erat 
impossibile teneri, a quibus etiam 
recte intelligitur solvisse et liberasse 
quos voluit, corpus quod in cruce reli- 
querat in sepulchro positum recepisse. | 


differently understood. 


the time of His death,” did go down into hell really, and was 
present there, or virtually and by effects only. For Thomas ὃ 
holds the first, and Durand‘ the latter. Then you agree not 
whether the soul of Christ did descend really and in essence 
into the lowest pit of hell, and place of the damned, as Bel- 
larmine" once held probable and proved it; or really only 
into that place or region of hell which you call limbum 
patrum, and then but virtually from thence into the lower 
hell; to which Bellarmine* reduces himself, and gives his 
reason, because it is the common opimion’ of the school. 
Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in 
the Creed, and believes them without farther dispute, and 
in that sense which the ancient primitive fathers of the 


s Thom. [Aquin.] pars Tert. Q[ueest. | 
lii. A[rt.] 2. [ Ruspon. dicendum, quod 
dupliciter dicitur esse aliquid alicubi. 
Uno modo per suum effectum, et hoc 
modo Christus in quemlibet inferno- 
rum descendit, aliter tamen et aliter. 
Nam in infernum damnatorum habuit 
hune effectum, quia descendens ad 
inferos eos de sua incredulitate et 
malitia confutavit, illis vero qui deti- 
nebantur in purgatorio, spem gloriz 
consequende dedit. Sanctis autem 
patribus qui pro solo peceato originali 
detinebantur in inferno, lumen zternee 
gloriz infudit. Alio modo dicitur 
aliquid esse] per suam essentiam, [et 
hoe modo anima Christi descendit 
solum ad locum inferni in quo justi 
detinebantur, ut quos Ipse per gratiam 
interius visitabat secundum divini- 
tatem eos etiam secundum animam 
visitaret et loco. ] 

t Durand. in III. [Sentent.] D[is- 
tinct.| xxii. Q[ueest.] 3. [Alio modo 
potest dici anima separata descendere 
ad infernum, secundum effectum. Et 
hoe modo potest dici anima Christi 
descendisse ad infernum propter dupli- 
cem effectum quem habuit in illis qui 
erant in inferno: unus effectus fuit 
exhibitio visionis divine qua carebant 
ad quem se habuit passio Christi per 
modum meriti... Alius effectus fuit 
secundum quosdam ad quem se habuit 
anima Christi directe per modum 
agentis, sc. illuminare animas patrum 
quee erant in limbo de ministeriis quee 
cadunt sub revelatione.—fol. ecelxxxi. | 

ἃ Bellarm. lib. iv. de Christo [i. 6. 
de Christi anima, | cap. 16. [Op., tom. i. 
col. 466. Primum dubium: ad que loca 


infernt descenderit. B. Thomas (Tert. 
par. 1. Queest. 111. art. 2.) docet Christ- 
um per realem preesentiam solum de- 
scendisse ad limbum patrum, per 
effectum autem ad omnia loca inferni 
...At probabile est profecto, Christi 
animam ad omnia loca inferni descen- 
disse. Primo probatur per locum 
illum Eeclus. (sc. xxiv. 45. in Vulg.) 
Penetrabo omnes, ἕο. Nam quod B. 
Thomas respondet, hoc intelligi de 
penetratione per effectum, non videtur 
satisfacere. Nam hoc modo possimus 
cum Durando dicere, ad nullum locum 
Christum descendisse aliter quam per 
effectum, cum Scriptura non distin- 
guat loca. Secundo quia Augustin. in 
Epist. xcix. dicit, Kum descendisse 
ad loca inferni, ubi erant dolores et 
tormenta, &c. | 

* Bellarmin. Recog. p. 11. [ Preef. 
ad Op., tom. i. col. 4.—De Christo, lib. 
iv. cap. 16, ὃ At probabile, ζῶ. Re 
melius considerata, sequendam esse 
existimo sententiam ὃ. Thome, que 
est et aliorum Scholasticorum (in ITI. 
Sentent. Distinct. xxii.), preesertim 
cum testimonium KHeclesiastici, et 
sanctorum patrum, qui videntur 
affirmare Christum descendisse ad 
loca omnia inferni, verificari possint, 
etiamsi dicamus Christi animam non 
descendisse ultra limbum sanctorum 
patrum, nam ex eo loco potuit ap- 
parere omnibus spiritibus qui in variis 
inferni locis degebant, et alios terrere, 
alios consolari, prout expedire Ipsi 
videbatur. | 

y Sequuntur enim [se. Scholastici] 
Tho. [Aquin. in] part. Tert. 1. ὁ. 
Q[ueest. ] lii. A[rt.] 2. [ubi sup. note ",} 


9 


SECTION 
XII. 





54 


Rogers’ Explanation of this Article. 


Coxrerence Church agreed in. And yet if any in the Church of England 


WITH 
FISHER. 


[A.C.p.47,] 


ὃ 13. 


should not be thoroughly resolved in the sense of this article, 
is it not as lawful for them to say, “I conceive thus or thus 
of it; yet if any other way of His descent be found truer than 
this, I deny it not, but as yet I know no other,” as it was for 
Durand’ to say it, and yet not impeach the foundation of 
the faith ? 


Af. The 43. said, that M. Rogers was but a private man. 
“ But,” said 1, “if M. Rogers,* writing as he did 
by public authority, be accounted only a private 


TAT ce ese 


* [The reason why the Jesuit did specially urge M. Rogers’ book, was for 
that it was both set out by public authority, and beareth the title, “ Of the 
Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England.” Our private authors are not 
allowed, for aught I know, in such a like sort, to take upon them to express our 
Catholic doctrine in any matter subject to question.—A. C. marg. note to p. 47. ] 

45. I.—I said truth, when I said M. Rogers was a private 
man. And, I take it, you will not allow every speech of 
every man, though allowed by authority to have his books 
printed, to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This ὃ 
hath been oft complained of on both sides: the imposing 
particular men’s assertions upon the Church ; yet I see you 
mean not to leave it. And surely, as controversies are now 
handled by some of your party at this day, I may not say 
it is the sense of the article in hand, but I have long 
thought it a kind of descent into hell, to be conversant in 
them. I would the authors would take heed in time, and 
not seek to blind the people, or cast a mist before evident 


truth, lest it cause a final descent to that place of torment. 


z(Quamvis autem istud probabiliter dubitata testimonia,] colligere [velle] 


sit dictum, et satis videatur salvare 
articulum et dictum scripture, tamen 
quia virtus divina non comprehenditur 
a ratione humana, ideo] non est per- 
tinaciter asserendum, quin anima 
Christi per alium modum nobis igno- 
tum potuerit descendere ad infernum : 
nec nos negamus alium modum esse 
forsitan veriorem; sed fatemur nos 
illum ignorare.—Durand. in III. Sent. 
Distinct. xxii. Quest. 3. No. 9. [fol. 
ccelx xxii. } 

® And this was an ancient fault 
too, for S. Augustine checks at it in 
his time. Noli [ergo, frater, contra 
divina tam multa, tam clara, tam in- 


calumnias ex episcoporum scriptis, 
sive [nostrorum, sicut] Hilarii; sive 
fantequam pars Donati separaretur, 
ipsius unitatis, sicut] Cypriani et 
Agrippini: primo, quia hoe genus lite- 
rarum ab auctoritate canonis distin- 
guendum est. Non enim sic leguntur 
tanquam ita ex iis testimonium pro- 
feratur, ut contra sentire non liceat, 
sicubi forte aliter sentirent, quam 
veritas postulat.—S. Augustin. Ep. 
xlvyili. [ad Vincentium, Ep. xciii. cap. 
x. Op., tom. 11. col. 245. H. ed. Bene- 
dict.] And yet these were far greater 
men in their generations than M. 
Rogers was. 


Value of Rogers’ Authority. 


But since you will hold this course, Stapleton was of greater 
note with you than M. Rogers’s “ Exposition of Notes upon 
the Articles of the Church of England” is with us. And as 
he, so his Relection. And is it the doctrine of the Church 
of Rome which Stapleton affirms,” “The Scripture is silent 
that Christ descended into hell, and that there is a Catholic 
and an Apostolic Church?” If it be, then what will become 
of the Pope’s supremacy over the whole Church? Shall he 
have his power over the Catholic Church given him expressly 
in Scripture—in the keys, to enter—and in pasce, to feed 
when he is in—and when he had fed, to confirm; and in all 
these not to err and fail in his ministration: and is the 
Catholic Church, in and over which he is to do all these 
great things, quite left out of the Scripture? Belike the 
Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power; yes, mm any 
case; but left the assigning of his great cure, the Catholic 
Church, to tradition. And it were well for him, if he could 
so prescribe for what he now claims. 

IT.—But what if, after all this, M. Rogers there says no 
such thing? ΑΒ in truth he doth not. His words are: “ All 
Christians acknowledge, He descended; but in the interpret- 
ation of the article, there is not that consent that were to 
be wished.” ὁ What is this to the Church of England, more 
than others? And again, “ Till we know the native and 
undoubted sense of this article,’ 15 M. Rogers’ “we” the 
Church of England—or rather his and some others’ judg- 
ment in the Church of England ? 

III.—Now here A.C. will have somewhat again to say, 
though, God knows, it is to little purpose. It is, “ that the 
Jesuit urged M. Rogers’ book, because it was set out by public 
authority, and because the book bears the title of ‘The Catholic 


Ὁ Stapl. Cont. v. Q[uest.] 5. A[rt. ] 
1. [ubi sup. p. 52. note °.] 

© Rogers in Art. Eccles. Angl. art. 3. 
[Also that Christ went down into hell, 
all sound Christians both in former 
days (He descended into hell, Apost. 
Sym.) and now living (Helvet. Confess. 
li. c. 11, &e., Basil. art. 4. Augsburg. 
art. 3, &c.,) do acknowledge ; howbeit 
in the interpretation of the Article, 
there is not that consent as were to 
be wished : some holding that Christ 
descended into hell, 1. as God only... 


2.asman only... 3. as God and man in 
one person . .—A Treatise upon sundry 
Matters contained in the XX XIX. Ar- 
ticles of Religion which are professed 
in the Church of England. Long since 
written and published by Thomas 
Rogers, pp. 15, 16. ed. London, 1639.] 

4 Tbid. [But till we know the 
native and undoubted sense of this 
article and mystery of religion, persist 
we adversaries unto them which say, 
that Christ descended not into hell at 
all, &e.—p. 17. ] 


55 


SEcTION 
XIII. 


Matt. xvi. 

19. 

John 

ΧΣΙ 15. 16. 
uke 

ΧΙ BY 


A.C. p. 47. 


56 


Though allowed, not adopted, by the Church of England. 


Coxrerenck Doctrine of the Church of England.’’’* A.C. may undoubtedly 


WITH 


FIsHErR. 


urge M. Rogers, if he please ; but he ought not to say that his 
opinion is the doctrine of the Church of England, for neither 
of the reasons by him expressed. First, not because “ his 
book was publicly allowed.” For many books among them, 
as well as among us, have been printed by public authority, 
as containing nothing in them contrary to faith and good 
manners, and yet containing many things in them of opinion 
only, or private judgment, which yet is far from the avowed 
positive doctrine of the Church, the Church having as yet 
determined neither way by open declaration upon the words 
or things controverted. And this is more frequent among 
their schoolmen than among any of our controversers, as 15 
well known. Nor, secondly, “ because his book bears the title 
of ‘The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England.’” For 
suppose the worst, and say M. Rogers thought a little too 
well of his own pains, and gave his book too high a title: is 
his private judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholic 
doctrine of the Church of England? Surely no: no more 
than I should say, every thing said by Thomas,‘ or Bona- 
venture’ is angelical or seraphical doctrine, because one of 
these is styled in the Church of Rome “ seraphical,” and the 
other, “ angelical doctor.” And yet their works are printed 
“by public authority,” and that title given them. 


© {The first form of Rogers’ work 
was a tabular analysis, without any 
exposition of the Articles, published 
in two parts, uuder the title: The 
English Creede, consenting with the 
true auncient Catholique and Aposto- 
lique Church in al the points and 
articles of Religion which euerie Chris- 
tian is to knowe and beleeue that 
would be saued. The first parte, in 
most loyal maner, to the glorie of God, 
credit of our Church, displaieng of al 
heeresies and errors both olde and newe 
contrarie to the faith, subscribed ynto 
by Thomas Rogers. Allowed by auctho- 
ritie. Imprinted by Iohn Windet, &c. 
London, 1585. The second part, ibid. 
1587. The preface is dated 6 February 
1585; and the oceasion of the work is 
stated to be “the great subscription 
urged from the pastors and ministers 
of the word and sacraments, ina great 
part of this and the last year. The 


causes of the same being either secret, 
I cannot, or not conyenient to be pub- 
lished, I may not set down.” The 
other and enlarged editions of the 
work abandon the tabular form, add 
a commentary and exposition, adopt 
the title given in the preceding note, 
and for a running head use the words, 
« The Catholick Doctrine believed and 
professed in the Church of England.” 
But it must be remarked, that the 
imprint, “allowed by aucthoritie,” on 
which A.C. remarks, occurs onlyin the 
first edition, and not in those edition 5 
which, consisting of what Laud calls 
“ Exposition of Notes,” contain the 
passage commenting on the sense of 
our Lord’s descent into hell.] 

f Angelici Dfoctoris] S[ancti] 
Tho. Summa, [in 'Tit.] 

8. Celebratissimi Patris Dom. Bona- 
venture Doctoris Seraphici in III. 
Sent. Disputata, [in Tit. ] 


Parallel Case of Soto and Vega on Justification. 57 


IV.—< Yea, but our private authors,” saith A. C. “are not  Sxcrion 
allowed, for aught I know, in such a like sort to express *!I- 
our Catholic doctrine in any matter subject to question.” A.C. p. 47. 
Here are two limitations, which will go far to bring A. C. 
off, whatsoever I shall say against him. For first, let me 
instance in any private man, that takes as much upon him as 
M. Rogers doth; he will say, He knew it not; his assertion 
here being no other, than “for aught he knows.” Secondly, 

If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much, yet he will 
answer, It is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth 
it; that is, perhaps, it is not the very title of his book. But 
well then: Is there never a private man allowed in the 
Church of Rome to express your Catholic doctrine in any 
matter subject to question? What! not in any matter? 
Were not Vega and Soto two private men? Is it not a 
matter subject to question—to great question in these days, 
whether a man may be certain of his salvation, certitudine 
fidei, “by the certainty of faith?” Doth not Bellarmine® 
make it a controversy? And is it not a part of your Catholic 
faith, if it be determined in the Council of Trent ?i And 
yet these two great friars of their time, Dominicus Soto 
and Andreas Vega, were of contrary opinions ; and both of 
them challenged the decree of the Council—and so conse- 


h Bellarm. Lib. iii. de Justificat. 
cap. 1, 14. [Op., tom. iv. col. 945, et 


dicebat... duas esse solummodo fidei 
acceptiones ; alteram, veritatem et 


sqq.—Errores precipui ex ea forma 
justificationis, quam Lutherani con- 
stituunt, quatuor esse videntur.... 
Colligunt secundo. Debere homines 
certo credere, non tantum se esse 
justos, sed etiam electos, ac preaedesti- 
natos. Quem errorem audacter docent 
Calvinistz, timidius autem Lutherani 
coda’ Status queestionis hic erit: 
Utrum debeat aut possit aliquis, 
sine speciali revelatione certus esse 
certitudine fidei divine, cui nullo 
modo potest subesse falsum, 510] 
remissa esse peccata. | 

i Sed concilii Tridentini, cui Catho- 
lici omnes ingenia sua atque judicia 
sponte subjiciunt, [decretum audia- 
mus, Sicut nemo pius, &c.|—Bellar- 
min. Lib. iii. de Justific. cap. 3. [Op., 
tom. iv. col. 950.] 

k Hist. Concil. Trident. Lib. ii. 
p. 245. edit. Lat. Leide, 1622. [At 
F. Dominicus Soto, omnibus adyersus, 


realitatem asseverantis, sive promit- 
tentis ; alteram, assensum auscultan- 
tis. Priorem esse in Deo; alteram 
solam esse nostram; de que hae in- 
telligenda Scripturee loca, que de 
fide nostra loquuntur. Fidem vero 
pro fiducia et confidentia accipere, 
non modo improprium esse sed abusi- 
vum, neque D. Paulo usitatum. 
Fiduciam a spe nihil aut parum 
differre : eoque haud dubium esse 
Lutheri errorem, imo heeresin, asseren- 
tis, Fidem justificantem esse fiduciam 
et certitudinem in mente fidelis de 
remissis sibi propter Christum pecca- 
tis... Tertiam opinionem in medium 
attulit Andreas Vega, non esse 
temeritatem, multoque minus fidem 
certam, sed sine peccato haberi posse 
persuasionem conjecturalem.—(Paul. 
Sarpi,) Histor. Concil. Trident. lib. ii. 
p. 153. ed. Aug. Trinobant. 1620.] 


58 


The Church of England does not 


Conrrrence quently your Catholic faith to be as each of them concluded ; 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


A.C. p. 47. 


[A.C.p 471 


and both of them wrote books to maintain their opinions, 
and both of their books were published “ by authority.” And 
therefore I think it is allowed in the Church of Rome, to 
private men, to express your Catholic doctrie, and in a 
matter subject to question. And therefore also, if another 
man in the Church of England should be of a contrary 
opinion to M. Rogers, and declare it under the title of “The 
Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England,” this were no 
more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome. And 
I, for my part, cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it. 
For he says, that “for aught he knows,” private men are not 
allowed so to express their Catholic doctrine. Andin the same 
question, both Catharinus and Bellarmine! take on them to 
express your Catholic faith: the one differmg from the 
other almost. as much as Soto and Vega, and perhaps in 
some respects more. 


¥. But if M. Rogers... be... only a private man, in 
what book may we find the Protestants’ public doc- 
trine ?* The B. answered, that to the book of Articles + 


they were all sworn; .. . 


* [By “ Protestants’ public doctrine” in this place, the Jesuit meant, as he 
understood the %. to mean, only of English Protestants ; for the words going 
before making mention only of the English Church, do limit the general word 
“ Protestants ” to this limited sense.—A. C. marg. note to p. 47.] 

+ [This answer hath reference to that sense which the question had of “only 
English Protestants,” and not of all English Protestants, αὐ οἵ such as the 33. 
and others are, who by office are teachers of Protestant doctrine, who do either 
swear to the Book of Articles, or by subscribing oblige themselves to teach that, 
and no contrary doctrine. But if the Chaplain, to discredit the Relation, will 
needs enforce a larger extent of the sense, contrary to the meaning of him that 
made the answer, and him that asked the question, who understood one 
another in that sense which I have declared ; he must know, that although 
none do swear or subscribe besides the English clergy to the Book of Articles, 
yet all who will be accounted members of, or to have communion with, one and 
the same English Protestant Church, are bound either to hold all those articles, 
or at least not to hold contrary to any one of them, in regard the English 
Protestant Church doth exclude every one from their Church by excommuni- 
cation ipso facto, as appeareth in their Book of Canons. “Can. 5.... Who 
shall hold anything contrary to any part of the said articles.” So as, in this 


1 [Tertia sententia est Ambrosii ejus et Apologiam contra Dominicum 
Catharini qui solum in primo dicto, a Soto. His erroribus contraria est 
(sc. posse fideles eam notitiam habere sententia communis fere omnibus 
de sua gratia, ut certa fide statuant theologis, &c.|—Bellarmin. Lib. iii. 
sibi remissa esse peccata,) cum heere- de Justif. cap. 3. [Op., tom. iv. col, 
ticis communicat... Videassertiones 949.] ᾿ 


confine her Doctrine to the Thirty-nine Articles. 


respect, I do not see why any one who pretendeth to be of one and the same 
Protestant communion with the Church of England, can be said not to be 
obliged to hold one and the same doctrine which is in the book of Articles, not 
only as the Chaplain saith, “in chiefest doctrines,” which like a cheverell point 
may be enlarged to more by those who agree in more, and straitened to fewer 
by those who agree in fewer points, but absolutely in all points, and not to 
hold contrary to any one, or any the least part of any one of them. Such a 
shrew, as it seems, is the Church of England become, no less than the 
Chaplain saith the Church of Rome to have been, in denying her blessing, 
and denouncing anathema against all that dissent, although most peaceably, 
in some particulars, remote enough from the foundation, in the judgment of 
the yong sort, both of foreign and home-bred Protestants.—A. C. marg. note 
to p. 47. 

[In the above note, the word “cheverell,” now disused, signifies a soft pliable 
leather, kid-skin, which admits of considerable stretching ; from the French 
chevreau. | 


%. I.—What! was I so ignorant to say, “The Articles of 
the Church of England were the public doctrine of all the 
Protestants ;” or, “That all Protestants were sworn to the 
Articles of England,” as this speech seems to imply? Sure 
I was not. Was not the immediate speech before, of the 
Church of England? And how comes the subject of the 
speech to be varied in the next lines? Nor yet speak I this, 
as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of 
England in the chiefest doctrines, and in the main excep- 
tions which they jointly take against the Roman Church, 


59 


SECTION 
ΧΕΝΣ 


§ 14. 


as appears by their several Confessions. But if A. C. will A.C.p.47. 


say, as he doth, “That because there was speech before of 
the Church of England, the Jesuit understood me in a 
limited sense, and meant only the Protestants of the English 
Church,”—be it so; there is no great harm done™ but this, 
that the Jesuit offers to enclose me too much. For 1 did 
not say, that the Book of Articles only was the continent of 
the Church of England’s public doctrine. She is not so 
narrow, nor hath she purpose to exclude anything which 
she acknowledges hers, nor doth she wittingly permit any 
crossing of her public declarations ; yet she is not such a 
shrew to her children as to deny her blessing, or denounce 
an anathema against them, if some peaceably dissent in 
some particulars remoter from the foundation, as your own 
Schoolmen differ. And if the Church of Rome, since she 
grew to her greatness, had not been so fierce in this course, 
and too particular in determining too many things, and 


m And therefore A. C. needs not make such a noise about it, as he doth, 
p. 48. 


60 The Thirty-nine Articles,not Fundamentals, though not to be opposed. 


Conrrrence Making them matters of necessary belief, which had gone 


WITH 
FIsHEer. 


A.C. p. 48. 


1(matters 
Bee Βα: 
1673 and 
1686. | 


A.C. p. 45. 


for many hundreds of years before, only for things of 
pious opinion, Christendom, I persuade myself, had been in 
happier peace at this day, than, I doubt, we shall ever live to 
see it. 

II.—Well, but A.C. will prove “the Church of England a 
shrew, and sucha shrew. For in her Book" of Canons, she 
excommunicates every man, who shall hold anything contrary 
to any part of the said Articles.” So A. C. But surely these 
are not the very words of the Canon, nor perhaps the sense. 
Not the words ; for they are: “ Whosoever shall affirm that 
the Articles are in any part superstitious, or erroneous,” το. 
And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man 
to hold an opinion privately within himself; and another 
thing boldly and publicly to affirm it. And again, it is one 
thing to hold contrary to some part of an article, which 
perhaps may be but in the manner of expression; and 
another thing positively to affirm, that the articles in any 
part of them are superstitious and erroneous. But this is 
not the main of the business; for though the Church of 
England denounce excommunication, as is before® expressed, 
yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome’s severity, 
whose anathemas are not only for thirty-nine articles, but for 
very many more,’ above one hundred in matter’ of doctrine, 
and that in many points as far remote from the foundation ; 
though, to the far greater rack of men’s consciences, they 
must be all made fundamental, if that Church have once 
determined them: whereas the Church of England never 
declared, that every one of her articles are fundamental in 
the faith. For it is one thing to say, No one of them is 
superstitious or erroneous ; and quite another to say, Every 
one of them is fundamental, and that in every part of it, 
to all men’s belief. Besides, the Church of England pre- 
scribes only to her own children, and by those articles 
provides but for her own peaceable consent in those doc- 
trines of truth. But the Church of Rome severely imposes 
her doctrine upon the whole world, under pain of dam- 
nation. : 


5 (Canon. v.] ° Canon. vy. P Concil. Trident. 


Scripture the Foundation of Faith. 


61 


. ... and that' the Scriptures only,* not any unwritten — Srcrton 


tradition, was the foundation of their faith. 


XY. 


[A:C.p.48. | 


* (The Chaplain saith, “The Church of England grounded her positive V [that ... 


articles upon Scripture,” &c. 
admitted for competent judges; in which sort some other novelist will say, 
that he grounded his positive articles upon Scriptures ; and his negative refute 
not only our Catholic, but also Protestant doctrines. As for example: Baptizing 
of Infants, upon this negative ground, is not expressly, at least (not) evidently, 
affirmed in Scriptures, nor directly, at least not demonstratively, concluded 
out of it. In which case I would gladly know, what the Chaplain would 
answer to defend this doctrine to be a point of faith, necessary for the salvation 
of poor infants, necessitate medii, as all Catholic divines hold? I answer with 
S. Austin:—(S. Aug. 1. i. contra Crese. ¢. 31.) Scripturarum a nobis tenetur 
veritas, cum id facimus quod universe pitacet ecclesie, quam earundem 
scripturarum commendat auctoritas: ‘We hold the verity of Scriptures, 
when we do that which pleaseth the whole Church, which the authority of the 
same Scriptures doth commend.” But what answer the Chaplain can make, I 
cannot easily guess, unless with us he acknowledge authority of Church-tradition 
to be necessary in this case.—A. C. marg. note to p. 48.] 


%. I.—The Church of England grounded her positive 
articles upon Scripture; and her negative do refute there, 
where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture, 
nor directly to be concluded out of it. And here, not the 
Church of England only, but all Protestants, agree most 
truly and most strongly in this, “That the Scripture is 
sufficient to salvation, and contains in it all things necessary 


to it.’ The Fathers? are 


a §. Basil. de vera et pia Fide. 
Manifesta defectio Fidei est, impor- 
tare quicquam eorum que scripta non 
sunt. [φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως καὶ 
ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία, ἢ ἀθετεῖν τι 
τῶν γεγραμμένων, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τῶν μὴ 
γεγραμμένων. ---ἶ. Basil. de Fide, cap. 1. 
Op., tom. ii. p. 224. D. ed. Benedict. |— 
8S. Hilar. Lib. ii.[cap. 8.124 Const. Aug. 
[In quantum ego tune beate reli- 
gioszeque voluntatis vere te, domine 
Constanti Imperator, admiror] fidem 
tantum secundum ea que scripta sunt 
desiderantem, et [merito plane ad illa 
ipsa unigeniti Dei eloquia festinans, ut 
imperatorie sollicitudinis capax pectus 
etiam divinorum dictorum conscientia 
plenum sit.] Hoe qui repudiat Anti- 
christus est: et qui simulat, ana- 
thema est.—[Op., col. 1229. F. ed. 
Benedict.]— 8. Aug. de Doctrina 
Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 9. [Op., tom. 
111. 60]. 24. D. ed. Benedict.] In iis 
{enim] quae aperte in Scripturis 
posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia 
que continent fidem, moresque vi- 
vendi, [spem scilicet atque caritatem, 


plain, the Schoolmen™ not 


de quibus tractavimus. ]|—And to this 
place Bellarmine, lib. iv. de Verbo 
Dei non seripto, ¢. 11. [Op., tom. i. 
col. 206.] saith, that 8. Augustine 
speaks, de illis dogmatibus que 
necessaria sunt omnibus simpliciter, 
[qualia sunt quee habentur in Sym- 
bolo Apostolico, et in decalogo,] ‘ of 
those points of faith, which are ne- 
cessary simply for all men.” So far 
then he grants the question. And 
that you may know, it fell not from 
him on the sudden, he had said as 
much before, in the beginning of the 
same chapter, [Primum est que- 
dam in doctrina Christiana tam fidei 
quam morum, esse simpliciter omni- 
bus necessaria ad salutem, qualis 
est notitia articulorum Symboli 
Apostolici, item cognitio decem pre- 
ceptorum, et nonnullorum - sacra- 
mentorum.—Ibid. col. 201.] and here 
he confirms it again. 

τ Scotus Prolog. in Sentent. Q/uzest. } 
ii. [c. 14. Op., tom. v. p. 63. Habito 
igitur contra hereticos, quod doctrina 
canonis est vera, videndum_ est 


True: if themselves in their own cause may be caret A. C.] 


§ 15. 


62 The positive Articles among the Thirty-nine grounded on Scripture. 


Conrerence Strangers init. And have not we reason then to account 
Fur, it as it is, the foundation of our faith? And Stapleton‘ 
is himself, though an angry opposite, confesses, “that the 
Scripture is in some sort the foundation of faith, that is, in 

the nature of testimony, and in the matter or thing to be 
believed.” And if the Scripture be the foundation to 

which we are to go for witness, if there be doubt about the 

faith, and in which we are to find the thing that is to be 

believed as necessary in the faith, we never did, nor never 

will refute any tradition that is universal and apostolic, for 

the better exposition of the Scripture ; nor any definition of 

the Church, in which she goes to the Scripture for what 

she teaches, and thrusts nothing as fundamental in the faith 

eee, upon the world, but what the Scripture fundamentally 
clear and makes materiam credendorum, “the substance of that which 





a dedue- is so to be believed,’ whether immediately and expressly in 
ion draws : : 
itout.... words, or more remotely, till a clear and full deduction 
Editt. 1673 draw it out.! 

and 1686.] : 

A.C.p.48. | I1.—Against the beginning of this paragraph, A.C. excepts. 


And first he says: “It is true, that the Church of England 
grounded her positive articles upon Scripture; that is, it is 
true, if themselves may be competent judges in their own 
cause.” But this, by the leave of A.C. is true, without 
making ourselves judges in our own cause. For “ that all 
the positive articles of the present Church of England are 
grounded upon Scripture,” we are content to be judged by 
the joint and constant belief of the Fathers, which lived 
within the first four or five hundred years after Christ, 


tibus explicatio fidei contra insur- 
gentes errores.| And he speaks there 
of the written word. 

5 Seripturam [autem] fundamen- 


secundo, an sit necessaria, et suflici- 
ens viatori ad consequendum finem 
suum....Ista ergo conferendo ad 
tres rationes quibus innititur solutio 


queestionis preecedentis patet quod 
sacra] Scriptura sufficienter continet 
doctrinam necessariam  viatori. — 
Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. 
Q[ueest.] i. Afrt.] 10. ap primum 
[ergo dicendum, quod] in doctrina 
Christi et Apostolorum, veritas fidei 
est sufficienter explicata, [sed quia 
perversi homines apostolicam doctri- 
nam, et ceeteras doctrinas et Scripturas 
pervertunt ad sui ipsorum perditio- 
nem sicut dictum 2 Pet. (iii. 16.) ideo 
necessaria fuit temporibus preeceden- 


tum et columnam fidei fatemur in 
suo genere esse, sc. in genere testi- 
moniorum, et in materia credendo- 
rum; [quo sensu unus_ primarius 
articulus est fundamentum multo- 
rum, ut de Petri confessione et fide 
incarnati Filii Dei scripsit Hilarius 
de Trinit. lib. vi. Sed non est solum 
fundamentum, Ecclesia enim firma- 
mentum et columna alia est. 1 Tim. 
111.1 Relect. Con. iv. Quest. i. Art. 3. 
in fine. [Op., tom. i. p. 774. ubi sup. 
p. 32. note ™] 


Mode of Proof by Consequences from Scripture. 


when the Church was at the best; and by the Councils held 
within those times; and to submit to them in all those 
points of doctrine. Therefore, we desire not to be judges in 
our own cause. Andif any whom A. C. calls “a novelist” 
can truly say and maintain this, he will quickly prove him- 
self no novelist. And for the negative articles, they refute, 
where the thing affirmed by you is either not affirmed in 
Scripture, or not directly to be concluded out of it. Upon 
this negative ground, A. C. infers again, “That the baptism 
of infants is not expressly, at least not evidently, affirmed 
in Scripture, nor directly, at least not demonstratively, con- 
cluded out of it.’ In which case, he “professes, he would 
gladly know, what can be answered to defend this doctrine 
to be a point of faith necessary for the salvation of infants.” 
And, in conclusion, “ professes he cannot easily guess what 
answer can be made, unless we will acknowledge authority 
of Church tradition necessary in this case.’’ 

III.—And truly, since A. C. is so desirous of an answer, 
I will give it freely. And first in the general. I am no way 
satisfied with A. C.’s addition—“ not expressly, at least not 
evidently.’ What means he? If he speak of the letter of 
the Scripture, then, whatsoever is expressly, is evidently, in 
the Scripture ; and so his addition is vain. If he speak of 
the meaning of the Scripture, then his addition is cunning ; 
for many things are expressly in Scripture, which yet in 
their meaning are not evidently there. And whatever he 
mean, my words are, “ That our negative articles refute that 
which is not affirmed in Scripture,” without any addition of 
“expressly ” or “evidently ;” and he should have taken my 
words as I used them. I like nor change nor addition; nor 
am I bound to either of A. C.’s making.—And I am as little 
satisfied with his next addition—“nor directly, at least not 
demonstratively, concluded out of 1. For are there not 
many things in good logic concluded directly, which yet are 
not concluded demonstratively? Surely there are. For to 
be directly or indirectly concluded, flows from the mood or 
form of the syllogism; to be demonstratively concluded, 
flows from the matter or nature of the propositions. If the 
propositions be prime and necessary truths, the syllogism is 
demonstrative and scientifical, because the propositions are 


63 


SECTION 
5 


A.C. p. 49. 


64 


Conrerence Such. 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


A.C. p. 49. 


Instanced in the Case of Infant Baptism. 


If the propositions be probable only, though the 
syllogism be made in the clearest mood, yet is the con- 
clusion no more. The inference or consequence, indeed, is 
clear and necessary ; but the consequent is but probable, or 
topical, as the propositions were. Now, my words were only 
for a direct conclusion, and no more: though in this case 
I might give A. C. his caution. For Scripture here is the 
thing spoken of. And Scripture being a principle, and every 
text of Scripture confessedly a principle among all Christians, 
whereof no man desires’ any farther proof, I would fain 
know, why that which is plainly and apparently, that is, by 
direct consequence, proved out of Scripture, is not demon- 
stratively or scientifically proved—if at least he think there 
can be any demonstration in divinity: and if there can be 
none, why did he add “ demonstratively ?” 

IV.—Next, in particular: I answer to the instance which 
A. C. makes concerning the baptism of infants, That it may be 
concluded directly (and let A. C. judge, whether not demon- 
stratively) out of Scripture, both that infants ought to be 
baptized, and that baptism is necessary to their salvation. 
And first, That baptism is necessary to the salvation of 
infants, (in the ordinary way of the Church, without binding 
God to the use and means of that sacrament, to which He hath 
bound us,)" is express in 8. John i. : “ Except a man be born 


sententia nisi moverentur, omnino 


τ (Ilud tandem intelligamus opor- 
parvulos nec baptizandos esse cense- 


tet] habitum fidei in ordine ad 


Theologiz disciplinam se habere, ut rentur. Sed quia non ait, inquiunt 
habitus intellectus se habet ad _  isti, Nisi quis renatus, &c., non 
humanas_ scientias [et facultates. habebit salutem, vel vitam zternam, 
Quemadmodum itaque intellectus tantummodo autem dixit, non intra- 


noster in discursu disciplinarum na- 
turalium, primo cum principiis con- 
greditur, deinde ad reliqua cognos- 
cenda proficiscitur, quee videlicet a 
principiis positis derivantur, sic in 
cognitione supernaturalium rerum 
quedam sunt principia supernatu- 
ralia, ex quorum fide fidelis animus 
ad cetera investiganda procedit.|— 
M{elchior] Canus, de loc{is Theolo- 
gicis,] lib. ii. cap. 8. [cap. 56. ed. 
Loyan. 1569. ] 

« §. Augustine expressly of the 
Baptism of infants. [Jam nune 
secrutemur diligentius, quantum ad- 
juvat Dominus, etiam ipsum Evan- 
gelii capitulum, ubi ait, Nisi quis 
renatus, &c, Qua isti (sc. Pelagiani) 


bit in regnum Dei; ad hoe parvuli 
baptizandi sunt, ut sint etiam cum 
Christo in regno Dei, ubi non erunt 
si baptizati non fuerint: quamvis 
et sine baptismo si parvuli moriantur, 
salutem vitamque eeternam habituri 
sint, quoniam nullo peccati vinculo 
obstricti sunt. Hzee dicentes, primo 
nunquam explicant isti, qua justitia 
nullum peccatum habens imago Dei 
separetur a regno Dei. Deinde videa- 
mus utrum Dominus Jesus, unus et 
solus magister bonus, in hac ipsa 
evangelica lectione non significaverit 
et ostenderit non nisi per remissionem 
peceatorum fieri, ut ad regnum Dei 
perveniant baptizati: quamvis recte 
intelligentibus sufficere debuerit, quod 


Scripture teaches the Necessity of Baptism for all : 


again of water, and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 


kingdom of God.” 


infants creep in any other ordinary way. 


dictum est, Nisi quis natus fuerit de- 
nuo, &c. et, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex 
aqua et Spiritu, &c.|—De peccatorum 
meritis et remissione, lib. i. cap. 30. 
{Op., tom. x. col. 32. D.]—and, [Quis- 
quis vero adhue movetur, quare bapti- 
zentur qui jam de baptizatis nascuntur, 
hoc breviter accipiat. Sicut generatio 
cammis peccati per unum Adam ad 
condemnationem trahit omnes qui eo 
modo generantur, sic generatio spiritus 
gratia per unum Jesum Christum ad 
justificationem vite eterne ducit 
omnes qui eo modo predestinati 
regenerantur. Sacramentum autem 
baptismi profecto sacramentum re- 
generationis est. Quocirea  sicut 
homo, qui non vixerit, mori non 
potest, et qui mortuus non fuerit, 
resurgere non potest, ita qui natus 
non fuerit, renasci non potest. Ex 
quo conficitur, neminem in suo 
parente renasci potuisse non natum. 
Oportet autem, ut si natus fuerit, 
renascatur: quia, Nisi quis natus fuerit 
denuo, ὅθ. Oportet igitur ut sacra- 
mento regenerationis, ne sine illo 
male de hac vita exeat, etiam parvu- 
lus imbuatur: quod non fit nisi in 
remissionem peccatorum.—ibid. ] lib. 
ii. cap. 27. [ubi sup. col. 63. C. |—and, 
[Sed ut omittamus et contemnamus 
ea, quee brevi tempore patiuntur, nec 
transacta revocantur, numquid simili- 
ter contemnere possumus, quod Per 
unum hominem mors, &c.? Per 
hane enim apostolicam, divinam, 
claramque sententiam, satis evidenter 
elucet, neminem ire in mortem nisi 
per Adam; neminem ire in vitam 
zeternam nisi per Christum... Item 
quisquis dixerit, quod in Christo 
Vivificabuntur etiam parvuli, qui 
sine sacramenti baptismi participa- 
tione de vita exeunt, hie profecto et 
contra apostolicam  przedicationem 
venit, et totam condemnat Lecle- 
siam, ubi propterea cum baptizandis 
parvulis festinatur et curritur, quia 
sine dubio creditur aliter eos in 
Christo vivificari omnino non posse. ] 
—Lib.i. [ad Hieronym. seu Ep. elxvi. 
(al. xxviii.) ] de origine anime homi- 
nis, [cap. vii. 21. Op., tom. ii. par. 2. 
col. 591. G.|-—Nay, they of the Roman 
party, which urge the baptism of 
infants as a matter of faith, and yet 
not to be concluded out of Scripture, 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


So, no baptism, no entrance. 


Nor can 
And this is the 


when they are not in eager pursuit of 
this controversy, but look upon truth 
with a more indifferent eye, confess as 
much (even the learnedest of them) 
as we ask: Advertendum autem 
Salvatorem, dum dicit, Nisi quis 
renatus, &c. necessitatem imponere 
omnibus, ac proinde [etiam] parvulos 
debere renasci ex aqua et Spiritu.x— 
[ Corn. ] Iansen[ii Comment. ] in [Con- 
cord.] Evang. cap. xx. [p. 157. ed. 
Lovan. 1571.] So here is baptism 
necessary for infants, and that ne- 
cessity imposed by our Saviour, and 
not by the Church only.—Heeretici 
[qui cum duo tantum faciant sacra- 
menta, Baptismum et Eucharistiam, 
doceantque etiam baptizandos infan- 
tes, nee ullo] alio quam hoe Scripturze 
testimonio probare possint, infantes 
esse baptizandos, [ne concedere co- 
gentur, &c.]— Mald[onat.] in 5. Joann. 
111. 5. So Maldonatus confesses that the 
Heretics (we know whom he means) 
can prove the baptism of infants by 
no testimony of Scripture but this: 
which speech implies, That by this 
testimony of Scripture it is and can 
be proved, and therefore not by 
Church tradition only.—And 1 would 
fain know, why Bellarmine, de Bap- 
tismo, lib. i. cap. 8. sect. 5. [Op., 
tom. iii. col. 269. D. Porro Catholica 
Keclesia semper docuit infantes bapti- 
zandos.... Probatur heec veritas tribus 
argumentorum generibus. Primum, 
Sumitur a scripturis : habemus autem 
in seripturis tria argumenta. Primum 
sumitur a figura Testamenti Veteris 
..... secundum argumentum colligitur 
ex duobus locis Evangelii simul junctis, 
Joann. iii.5. Nisi quis renatus, Xe. 

.. At quod parvuli non pereant Do- 
minus docet, Mat. xix. 14. Mar. x. 14. 
et Luc. xviii. 16. Sinite parvulos, &e. 
..... Tertium argumentum colligitur 
ex locis illis, ubi dicuntur baptizatee 
integrve familie, ut Actor. xvi. 15 di- 
citur Lydia baptizata, et domus ejus :] 
should bring three arguments out of 
Scripture to prove the baptism of 
infants, (Habemus in scripturis tria 
argumenta, &c.) if baptism cannot be 
proved at all out of Scripture, but 
only by the tradition of the Church.— 
And yet, this is not Bellarmine’s way 
alone, but Suarez’s in Thom. [Aquin. 
Summ.] Part. Tert. Q[ueest.] Ixvili. 


Ἐ 


65 


Srcrron 
XY. 


66 


Coyrerence received opinion of all the ancient Church of Christ.* 


WITH 
TisHer. 


Hence Infant Baptism may be directly inferred from Scripture ; 


And 


secondly, That infants ought to be baptized, is, first, plain by 


evident and direct consequence out of Scripture. 


For if 


there be no salvation for infants in the ordinary way of the 


[Art.10.] Disput. xxv. Sect. i. § 2. 
(Comment. ac Disput. in Tert. Part. 
Diy. Thom. tom. iii. p. 255. col. ii. ed. 
Mogunt. 1619. Dico primo, homines 
post nativitatem ex utero materno 
statim sunt capaces baptismi, etiamsi 
rationis usum non habeant. Conclu- 
sio est de fide, quee licet non sit in 
Sacra Scriptura expressa,] possunt 
{tamen] ex illa varia argumenta 
sumiad eam confirmandam, [Actor. 
enim xvi. legimus, &c...... peNiec 
dissimile [argumentum sumitur ex 
ipsa institutione baptismi, et ex illis 
verbis Joann. 111. &c,|—And Grego- 
rius de Valentia, de Suscipientibus 
Baptismum, [Comment. Theolog. in 
Tert. Part. Div. Thom. Quest. ]xyiii. 
Art. 10. Disput. iv. Queest. iii. 
Punct. 1. Op., tom. iv. col. 727.C. ed. 
Paris. 1609. Infantes secundum fidem 
Catholicam baptizari posse..... pro- 
batur primo ex Scriptura, &c. |}—And 
the Pope himself, Innocent III. [ Arela- 
tensi Archiepiscopo] Decretal. lib. iii. 
Tit. 42. cap. Majores. [Asserunt 
heretici parvulis inutiliter baptisma 
conferri.... Ad id autem taliter re- 
spondemus quod baptisma circumci- 
sioni successit.... ita nunc indistincte 
vox intonat evangelica, Nisi quis 
renatus, &¢.|—And theyall jump with 
S. Ambros. lib. x. Epist. 84.ad Deme- 
triad. Virg. who expressly affirms 
it, Peedobaptismum esse constitutio- 
nem Salvatoris. And proves it out 
of 5. John iii. 5. [Hine Ade pecca- 
tum exemplo posteris asserebatur no- 
cuisse non transitum... hine evacuatio 
baptismatis parvulorum, qui sola adop- 
tione donati, nullo autem reatu diceren- 
tur absolvi.... Nec frustra scriptum 
est: Nemo mundus a sorde, nec in- 
fans, cujus unius diei vita est super 
terram. Et quis poteritfacere mundum 
de immundo conceptum semine, nonne 
Tu qui solus es? Propter quod sicut 
nunc in ecclesia manet constitutio Sal- 
yatoris, dicentis: Nisi quis renatus, &e. 
—(Pseudo-) 8. Ambrosii, lib. x. Epist. 
84. ut sup. Op., tom. iii. p. 265. B. ed. 
(Erasm.) Basil. 1538. This epistle, ad 
Demetriadem, is rejected by the Bene- 
dictine editors. See Appendix to Op., 
tom. ii. col. 477, 478. ed. Benedict. It 
has been yariously attributed to S. Leo 


Magn. by his editor Quesnel; and to 
S. Prosper of Aquitaine by his editor 
Antelmn. See 5. Prosp. Aquit. Op., 
p. 930. ed. Paris. 1711.] 

x TInfantes reos esse originalis pec- 
cati, et ideo baptizandos esse, anti- 
quam fidei regulam vocat 8. Aug. 
ser. viii. cap. 8. de verb. Apost. [sc. 
Universam massam generis humani 
in homine primo yenenator ille per- 
cussit; nemo ad secundum transit 
a primo, nisi per baptismatis sacra- 
mentum. In parvulis natis et non- 
dum baptizatis agnoscatur Adam.... 
ex eo quod in te corrumpitur generas 
parvulum.... quare novis disputa- 
tionibus antiquam fidei regulam 
frangere conaris?—Serm. clxxiy. de 
verbis Apost. 1 Tim. i. Humanus 
sermo et omni acceptione, &c. Op., 
tom. v. col. 834. F.|—Et, Nemo vobis 
susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoe Ec- 
clesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, 
hoe a majorum fide percepit: [hoc 
usque in finem perseveranter cus- 
todit .... Si quando portantur in- 
fantes, dicuntur omnino nullum pro- 
paginis habere peccatum, et veniunt 
ad Christum; quare non eis dicitur 
in Ecclesia qui eos apportant: <Au- 
ferte hine innocentes istos?] — §. 
Aug. Serm. x. [clxxvi. ed. Benedict. ] 
cap. 2. de verbis Apost. [1 Tim. i. Fide- 
lis sermo et omniacceptione, &c. Op., 
tom. v. col. 840. A.J]—And [Pseudo-] 
S. Ambros. lib. x. epist. 84. [ubi sup. 
Que omnia et multo plura documenta 
non tanta cura sacris paginis Spiritus 
Sanctus inseruisset, si talis esset na- 
tura in filiis Adam, qualis in ipso est 
principaliterinstituta.]—And 5. Chry- 
sostom, Homil. de Adam. et Eva. [The 
following passage may perhaps be that 
referred to in this vague citation: 
Ὁρᾷς πῶς μείζων ἡ εὐπορία τῆς ζημίας ; 
πῶς πλείων ὁ Πλοῦτος ; οἷόν τι λέγω, 
ἔπλασεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπὸ γῆς 
καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἔθετο αὐτὸν ἐν τῳ παρα- 
δείσῳ" οὐκ ἐγένετο χρήσιμος ὁ πλασθεὶς, 
ἀλλὰ διεστράφη᾽ οὐκέτι λοιπὸν ἀπὸ γῆς 
καὶ ὕδατος αὐτὸν ἀναπλάττει, GAN ἐξ 
ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματοκ᾽ καὶ οὐκ ἔτι παρά- 
δεισον ἐπαγγ΄λλεται πρὸς αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ 
βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν. καὶ ὕπως ἄκουε. 
Νικοδήμου γὰρ τοῦ ἄρχοντος τῶν ἼἸου- 
δαίων κ. τ. A.—S, Chrysostom. in 


as tt is almost expressly commanded therein, 67 


Church, but by baptism, and this appear in Scripture, as it Sxcrrox 

doth, then out of all doubt, the consequence is most evident au 

out of that Scripture, That infants are to be baptized, that 

their salvation may be certain. For they which cannot help 

themselves,’ must not be left only to extraordinary helps; of 

which we have no assurance, and for which we have no 

warrant at all in Scripture; while we, in the mean time, neg- 

lect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ. 

Secondly, it is very near an expression in Scripture itself. 

For when S. Peter had ended that great sermon of his, he 

applies two comforts unto them, “ Amend your lives, and be Acts ii. 

baptized, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” dont 

And then, he infers, “ For the promise is made to you, and 

to your children.” The promise! what promise? What ? 

Why, the promise of sanctification by the Holy Ghost. By 

Why, by baptism: for it is expressly, “ Be 

baptized, and ye shall receive;” and as expressly, “This 

promise is made to you, and to your children.” And there- 

fore A. C. may find it, if he will, That the baptism of infants 

may be directly concluded out of Scripture. For some of 

his own party, Ferus? and Salmeron,* could both find it 

there. And so, if it will do him any pleasure, he hath my 

answer, which, he saith, “ he would be glad to know.” lanes tee 
V.—It is true, Bellarmine” presses a main place out of 48.] 


what means? 


Genesim, Sermo vil. cap. 5. Op., tom. 
iv. p. 681. C.|—Hoe preedicat Ecclesia 
Catholica ubique diffusa.—[ Concil. Mi- 
levit. canon. ii. ubi sup. p. 40. note ".] 

y [Commendaverim caritati vestree | 
causam eorum, qui pro se loqui non 
possunt.—S.Augustin. serm. viii. cap.8. 
de verb. Apost. [ubi sup. col. 834. E. ] 

z [Tertio signanter addit, Unus- 
quisque vestriim &c. ] nullum [quippe ] 
excipiens, [non marem, non foeminam, 
non servum, non liberum,] non Ju- 
dum, non Gentilem, nee adultum, 
nec puerum, [et omnibus indicat esse 
necessarium baptisma.—Reverendi pa- 
tris D. Joannis] Feri ὅσο, [Enarra- 
tiones in Acta Apostolor.] in Act. ii. 
39. [p. 28. Colonize, 1567.] 

« | Vobis enim est repromissio, et 
jiliis vestris, et omnibus qui longe 
sunt. Hoe est, ad vos Judzos, vel 
preesentes, repromissio Joelis de Spi- 
ritu Sancto,] et ad filios vestros, [quos 
multum juyat parentum fides, sicut 


nocet infidelitas:] quare debent con- 
sentire, cum ad usum rationis perve- 
niunt, ad implenda promissa in 
Baptismo: [et non tantum ad eos, 
sed ad omnes qui longe sunt a Dei 
notitia, quos videlicet Dominus ex 
sua gratia advocavit, spectat hoe 
tantum beneficium. |] — Salmeron. 
Tractat. xiv. in loc. [sc. Act. ii. 39. 
Comment. tom. xii. pp. 87, 88. ed. 
Colon. 1614. ] 

b [Secunda regula est, quando uni- 
versa Heclesia aliquid servat, quod 
nemo constituere potuit, nisi Deus, 
quod tamen nusquam invenitur scrip- 
tum, necesse est dicere, ab ipso Christo, 
et Apostolis ejus traditum. Ratio est 
similis superiori. Nam Ecclesia uni- 
versa non solum non potest errare in 
credendo, sed nec in operando, ac pree- 
sertim in ritu et cultu divino ; recteque 
Augustin. Epist. 118. docet insolen- 
tissimee insaniz esse existimare, non 
recte fieri, quod ab universa Ecclesia 


F2 


68 


Though it may not be recognised without Tradition, 


Coxrrrence §, Augustine, and he urgesit hard. S. Augustine’s words are, 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


Matt. ix. 
[12.] 


“ The custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants 
is by no means to be contemned, or thought superfluous ; 
nor yet at all to be believed, unless it were an apostolical 
tradition.”* The place is truly cited, but seems a great 
deal stronger than indced it is. For, first, it is not denied, 
that this is an apostolical tradition, and therefore to be 
believed. But, secondly, not therefore only. Nor doth 
S. Augustine say so, nor doth Bellarmine press it that way. 
The truth is, it would have been somewhat difficult to find 
the collection out of Scripture only for the baptism of infants, 
since they do not actually believe. And therefore 5. Augus- 
tine is at nec credenda nisi, that this custom of the Church 
had not been to be believed, had it not been an apostolical 
tradition. But the tradition being apostolical, led on the 
Church easily to see the necessary deduction out of Scripture. 
And this is not the least use of tradition, to lead the Church 
into the true meaning of those things which are found in 
Scripture, though not obvious to every eye there. And that 
this is 8S. Augustine’s meaning is manifest by himself, who 
best knew it. For when he had said, as he doth, That to 
baptize children is antiqua fidei regula, “the ancient rule of 
faith,”’ and “the constant tenet of the Church,” yet he doubts 
not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also. For when 
Pelagius urged, that infants needed not to be baptized, 
because they had no original sin, 8S. Augustine relies not 
upon the tenet of the Church only, but argues from the text 
thus: ‘“ What need have infants of Christ if they be not 
sick ? ‘For the sound need not the physician.’” ® And again, 


fit. Ergo illa que Ecclesia non potest 
recte servare, nisi a Deo sint instituta, 
et tamen servat, necesse est dicere, 
a Deo instituta, etiamsi nusquam id 
legatur. Tale est baptisma parvulorum. 
Erraret enim gravissime Ecclesia, si 
sine Dei mandato parvulos, qui actu 
non credunt, baptizaret. Quocirea Au- 
gustinus, lib. x. de Gen. cap. 29, &c. |— 
Bellarmin. de Verbo Dei [non scripto, ] 
ag iv. cap. 9. ὃ ὃ. [Op., tom. i. col. 193. 


¢ §. Aug. [de] Gen[esi,] ad Lit. [lib. 
x.| cap. 23.{Op., tom. 111. par. 1. 60]. 272. 
D.| Consuetudo [tamen] Matris Eccle- 
size in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam 
spernenda est, [neque ullo modo super- 


flua deputanda, | nec omnino credenda, 
nisi Apostolica esset traditio. 

4 Quare [noyis disputationibus ] an- 
tiquam fidei regulam frangere conaris? 
—S. Aug. Ser. viii. [clxxiv.] de verb. 
Apost. cap. 8. [ubi sup. p. 66. note *. ]— 
Hoe Ecclesia semper [habuit, semper] 
tenuit.—Id. Ser. x. [elxxvi.] cap. 2. [ubi 
sup. p. 66. note *. 

© [Quoniam (Matth. ix. 12.) non est 
opus sanis medicus, sed eegrotanti- 
bus,] quid necessarium [ergo] habuit 
infans Christum, si non egrotat? [Si 
sanus est, quare per eos qui eum dili- 
gunt, medicum querit —S.Aug.Serm, 
elxxvi. ubi sup.]— Quid est quod 
dicis, nisi ut non accedant ad Jesum? 


which unfolds the implicit Sense of Scripture. 


69 


“Ts not this said by Pelagius, ut non accedant ad Jesum ? ‘that ϑποτιον 


infants may not come to their Saviour?’ Sed clamat Jesus, 
‘but Jesus cries out, ‘Suffer little ones to come unto 
Me.” And all this is fully acknowledged by Calvin,! 
namely, “ That all men acknowledge the baptism of infants 
to descend from apostolical tradition.” And yet that “it 
doth not depend upon the bare and naked authority of the 
Church.” § Which he speaks not in regard of tradition, but 
in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary con- 
sequence out of Scripture over and above tradition. 

VI.—As for tradition, I have said enough for that," and as 
much as A. C. where it is truly apostolical. 
thing will please him, I will add this concerning this particular, 
the baptizing of infants, that the Church received this by 
tradition from the Apostles.’ By tradition. And what then ? 
May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture, because 
it was delivered to the Church by way of tradition? I hope 
A. C. will never say so. For certainly in doctrinal things 
nothing so likely to be a tradition apostolical as that which 


hath a root and a foundation in Scripture.‘ 


Sed tibi clamat Jesus, Sine parvulos 
venire ad Me.—S. Augustin. [Serm. 
clxxiv. ubi sup. p. 66. note *.] 

f (Quod autem apud simplicem vul- 
gum disseminant, longam annorum 
seriem post Christi resurrectionem 
preeteriisse, quibus incognitus erat 
peedobaptismus, in eo feedissime men- 
tiuntur : siquidem] nullus est scriptor 
tam vetustus, qui non ejus originem ad 
apostolorum seculum pro certo referat. 
—Calvin. Instit. lib. iv. cap. 16. §8. 
[Op., tom. viii. p. 357. col. I. ] 

s [Aiunt peedobaptismum non tam 
ex aperto scriptures mandato, quam 
ex ecclesiz decreto emanasse. At] 
miserrimum asylum foret, si pro defen- 
sione peedobaptismi ad nudam eccle- 
siz auctoritatem suffugere cogeremur. 
—Calvin. Instit. lib. iv. cap. 8. § 16. 
[Op., tom. viii. p. 311. col. 2.] 

h [Vide sup.] sect. xv. 1. [p. 62.] 

i Origen. in Rom. vi. 6. tom. ii. 
p- 543. Pro hoe [et] ecclesia ab apo- 
stolis traditionem suscepit, etiam par- 
vulis baptismum dare. [Sciebant enim 
illi quibus mysteriorum secreta com- 
missa sunt divinorum, quod essent 
in omnibus genuine sordes peccati, 
qua per aquam et Spiritum ablui de- 
berent.-—Comment. in Rom. lib. v. cap. 


For Apostles 


9. Op., tom. iv. p. 565. A. col. 2. ed. 
Benedict.|—Et 8. Aug. Ser.x. [clxxvi.] 
de verb. Apost. cap. 2. [ubisup. p. 66. 
note*.| Hoe ecclesia a majorum fide 
percepit.—And itis to be observed, that 
neither of these Fathers (nor I believe 
any other) says that theChurch received 
it “a traditione sola,” or “a majorum 
fide sola,” as if tradition did exclude 
collection of it out of Seripture. 

k Yea, and Bellarmine himself avers, 
De verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 
x. ὃ 7: Sic etiam [quia scriptum est 
2 Thess. ii. 15. Tenete traditiones, &e. ; 
et Lue. x. 16. Qui vos audit, Me au- 
dit ; et Matt. xviii. 17. Si ecclesiam 
non audierit, &c., idcirco nos affirma- 
mus, traditiones esse quodammodo ex- 
plicationes verbi scripti, non quod 
nudam contineant ejus expositionem, 
sed quia] omnes traditiones [et eccle- 
siz decreta] continentur in scriptis in 
universali; [sed in particulari non 
continentur, nec debent contineri.— 
Op., tom. i. col. 196. C.] And§. Basil, 
Serm. de fide, approves only those 
Agrapha, que non sunt aliena a pia 
secundum Scripturam sententia. | ews 
μὲν οὖν ἀγωνίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἐπανιστα- 
μένας κατὰ καιρὸν αἱρέσεις ἐχρῆν, ἑπό - 
μενος τοῖς προσεληφόσιν, ἀκόλουθον 


ΧΥ: 


Mark x. 
14, 


And yet if any A.C. p.49. 


70 How is Scripture known to be Scripture? 


Conrrrencr cannot write or deliver contrary, but subordinate and sub- 


WITH Bs ] . 
Fisuer. Servient, things. 


[A.C.p.49.] 4f. I asked how * he knew Scripture to be Scripture, 


and in particular Genesis, Exodus, &c. These are 
believed to be Scripture, yet not proved out of any 
The 39. said, that the books of 


Scripture are principles to be supposed, and needed 


place of Scripture. 


not to be proved. 


* [The Jesuit did not ask this question as doubting of the divine authority 
of Scripture, but to make it seen, that beside Scripture, which the 33. said was 
the “only” foundation of faith, there must be admitted some other foundation, 
to wit, “unwritten” tradition, and this of infallible authority, to assure us 
infallibly that these books are divine; which to be divine is one point infallibly 
believed by divine faith, and yet cannot be infallibly proved by “ only” Serip- 
ture: therefore “only” Scripture cannot be said, as the %. said, to be the 
“only” foundation of faith, or of every point believed by faith. I hope the 
Chaplain, who is so careful to avoid all suspicion of being familiar with impiety, 
as he would have no question moved about this point upon any terms or pre- 
tence, will not be so impious as to say, That to believe these books to be divine 
Scripture, is not a point of divine faith; or that this point, being so important, 
as itis, to be most firmly believed, is believed by divine faith, without any 
ground or foundation; or without a sufficient infallible and divine foundation 
of God’s word, written or unwritten. Since therefore this is a point of faith, 
and hath a foundation, yea an infallible foundation, it is not against either art, 
or equity, or piety, for confutation of error, and confirmation of truth, to 
inquire what particular foundation of God’s word, written or unwritten, doth 
assure us infallibly that these particular books contain the sole and whole truth 
of God, believed by Christian faith. Neither need any be troubled, or endan- 
gered, by this question, but such as, not finding any sufficient foundation in 
God’s word written, do pertinaciously resolve not to believe any thing to be 
God’s word which is not written. Those that believe that there is a word of 
God, partly written and partly unwritten, according to that of S. Paul (2 Thess. 
ii.), “Hold the traditions, whether by our word,or epistle,” do easily, and without 
too much turning in a wheel or circle, answer the question. See the reply to 
Mr. Wootton and M. White in the Introduction, of which mention is made in 
the Relation, where this and divers other important matters pertaining to the 
drift of this Conference are handled at large.—A. C. marg. note to p. 49.] 


%. I—I did never love too curious a search into that which 
might put a man into a wheel, and circle him so long between 
proving Scripture by tradition, and tradition by Scripture, 
till the deyil find a means to dispute him into infidelity, and 
make him believe neither. 1 hope this is no part of your 
meaning. Yet I doubt this question, “ How do you know 
Scripture to be Scripture ?”! hath done more harm, than 


δ 16. 


ἡγούμην τῇ διάφορᾳ τῆς ἐπισπειρομένης 
ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀσεβείας, ταῖς ἀντιθέ- 
τοις φωναῖς κωλύειν, ἢ καὶ ἀνατρέπειν τὰς 
ἐπαγομένας βλασφημίας, καὶ ἄλλοτε ἄλ- 
λαις, ὡς ἂν ἡ χρεία τῶν νοσούντων κατη- 
νάγκασε, καὶ ταύταις πολλάκις ἀγράφοις 
μὲν, ὕμως δ᾽ οὖν οὐκ ἀπεξενωμέναις τῆς 
κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν εὐσεβοῦς διανοίαΞ᾽---- 


5. Basil. Serm. de fide, cap. 1. 
tom. ii. p. 224. B. ed. Benedict. ] 

! (Et non est quidem durum, quod 
unusquisque fidelium qui credit qui- 
dem, non tamen cum ratione, et cum 
judicio credit, ut ita sit constans in 
fide, ut etsi mille crimina objiciant 
contra evangelicam fidem] volentes 


Op., 


Four principal Methods of Proof. 


you will be ever able to help by tradition. But I must 
follow that way which you draw me. And because it is so 
much insisted upon by you,™ and is in itself a matter of such 
consequence, I will sift it a little further. 

II.—Many men labouring to settle this great principle in 
divinity, have used divers means to prove it. All have not 
gone the same way, nor all the right way. You cannot be 
right, that resolve “faith of the Scriptures,” being the “ word 
of God,” into “ only tradition.” For “only,” and “no other” 
proof are equal. To prove the Scripture, therefore (so called 
by way of excellence), to be the word of God, there are 
several offers at divers proofs. For first, some fly to the 
testimony and witness of the Church, and her tradition, 
which constantly believes, and unanimously delivers it. 
Secondly, some to the light and the testimony which the 
Scripture gives to itself; with other internal proofs which 
are observed in it, and to be found in no other writing 
whatsoever. Thirdly, some to the testimony of the Holy 
Ghost, which clears up the light that is in Scripture, and 
seals this faith to the souls of men, that it is God’s word. 
Fourthly, all that have not imbrutished themselves, and 
sunk below their species and order of nature, give even 
natural reason leave to come in, and make some proof, and 
give some approbation upon the weighing and the consider- 
ation of other arguments. And this must be admitted, if it 
be but for pagans and infidels, who either consider not or 
value not any one of the other three: yet must some way or 


destruere fidem nostram, [ut in nulla 
parte corum commoyeatursermonibus, | 
qui [fingentes se credere scripturis 
evangelicis, |] per occasionem unius aut 
alterius queestionis aut difficilis, aut 
forte et indissolubilis, [adversantes 
scripturis] festinant fidem [Christi et 
Evangeliorum ejus] tollere [de anima 
nostra.— Origen.Q. [i.e.Tractat. | xxxv. 
in Matth. [Hrasmo interpret. tom. 11. 
p. 231.ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1545. et in 
Matth. Comment. Ser. 134. Op., tom. 
111, p. 923. D. ed. Benedict. ] 

m “To know that Scriptures are 
divine and infallible in every part, is 
a foundation so necessary, as if it be 
doubtfully questioned, all thefaith built 
upon Scripture falls to the ground.” 
A.C. p. 47.—Quarto, necesse est nosse, 
extarelibros aliquos vere divinos, [quod 


certe nullo modo ex Scripturis haberi 
potest. Nam etiamsi Scriptura dicat, 
libros prophetarum etapostolorum esse 
divinos, tamen non certo id credam, 
nisi prius credidero, Scripturam, quee 
hoe dicit, esse divinam. ]—Bellarm. de 
verbo Dei non scripto, lib.iv.cap. 4.§15. 
[Op.,tom.i,col.175.B. |—Sexto,oportet 
etiam [non solum scire qui sint libri 
sacri, sed etiam in particulari] istos, qui 
sunt in manibus, esse illos. [Non enim 
satis est credere Evangelium Marci 
esse verum, Evangelium Thome non 
esse verum, sed oportet etiam credere, 
hoe evangelium, quod nunc legitur 
sub nomine Marci, esse illud verum et 
incorruptum quod scripsit Marcus, 
quod ecerte ex Scripturis haberi non 
potest.—Ibid. col. 175. D.] 


71 


SroTron 
KV 


72 


Conrrrencr Other be converted, or “left without excuse ;” 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


Rom. i. 20. 


(1.) Tradition alone not a sufficient Proof of this. 


and that is 
done by this very evidence. 

III.—For the first: the “ tradition of the Church,” which is 
your way. That taken and considered alone, it is so far from 
being the only, that it cannot be a sufficient, proof to believe 
by divine faith, that Scripture is the word of God. For that 
which is a full and sufficient proof, is able of itself to settle 
the soul of man concerning it. Now, the tradition of the 
Church is not able to do this. For it may be further asked, 
Why we should believe the Church’s tradition ? And if it be 
answered, We may believe, because the Church is infallibly 
governed by the Holy Ghost; it may yet be demanded of 
you, How that may appear? And if this be demanded, either 
you must say, you have it by special revelation, which is the 
“private spirit” you object to other men, or else you must 
attempt to prove it by Scripture,” as all of you do. And 
that very offer, to prove it out of Scripture, is a sufficient 
acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher proof than 
the Church’s tradition, which, in your own grounds, is or may 
be questionable till you come thither. Besides, this is an 
inviolable ground of reason: “ That the principles of any 
conclusion must be of more credit than the conclusion itself.” ° 
Therefore if the Articles of Faith, the Trinity, the Resurrec- 
tion, and the rest, be the conclusions, and the principles by 
which they are proved be only ecclesiastical tradition, it must 
needs follow, that the tradition of the Church is more infal- 
lible than the articles of the faith, if the faith which we have 
of the articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of 
the Church’s testimony. But this your learned and wary 
men deny,’ and therefore I hope yourself dare not affirm. 


n Esse aliquas veras traditiones πρῶτα, propter prima scimus et cre- 


dimus, illa 


demonstratur ex Scripturis.—Bellar. 
de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 5. 
[in tit. Si Scriptura non continet om- 
nia, ef necessarium est verbum tradi- 
tum, sequitur esse aliquod verbum 
traditum, alioqui Deus non bene pro- 
vidisset ecclesize. Secundo probatur 
testimoniis Scripturarum. Primum est 
Johannis xvi. 12. Multa habeo, &c, Et 
Johan. xxi. 25. Sunt autem et alia 
multa, &ec.—Op., tom. i. col. 177. D.] 
And A.C. p. 50. [10] sup. p. 70.] proves 
“tradition” out of 2 Thess. ii. [15.] 

© Aristot Post. [Analyt. lib.]i.cap.2. 
T. 16. per Pacium. Quocirea si διὰ τὰ 


quoque scimus et ere- 
dimus, μᾶλλον, magis, quia per illa 
scimus et credimus etiam posteriora. 
[᾿Ανάγκη, Bn μόνον προγινώσκειν τὰ 
πρῶτα, ἢ πάντα ἢ ἔνια, ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον" 
ἀεὶ γὰρ, δι’ ὃ ὑπάρχει ἕκαστον, ἐκεῖνο 
μᾶλλον ὑπάρχει" οἷον. δ ὃ φιλοῦμεν, 
ἐκεῖνο φίλον μᾶλλον. ἽΩστ᾽, εἴπερ ἴσμεν 
διὰ τὰ πρῶτα καὶ πιστεύομεν, κἀκεῖνα 
ἴσμεν τε καὶ πιστεύομεν μᾶλλον, ὅτι δι 
ἐκεῖνα καὶ τὰ ὕστερον.---Ὁ}., tom. i. 
p- 185. ed. Bekker, Oxon. 1837.] 

P {Cui et tertium subjiciendum est, 
rationem formalem nostre fidei non 
esse ecclesiee auctoritatem, hoc est, 


The Testimony of the present Church not the only Object of Faith. 


IV.—Again, if the voice of the Church, saying the books 
of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God, 
be the formal object of faith, upon which alone absolutely I 
may resolve myself; then every man not only may, but 
ought to, resolve his faith into the voice or tradition of the 
Church: for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and 


formal object of the faith. 


But nothing can be more evident 


than this, That a man ought not to resolve his faith of this 
principle into the sole testimony of the Church. Therefore, 
neither is that testimony or tradition, alone, the formal ob- 


ject of faith. 


fidei ultimam resolutionem non fieri 
in ecclesie testimonium, ips scho- 
lasticee res formas dicendi scholasticas 
rapiunt ...Sedad rem.] Eorum [hic] 
errorem dissimulare non possum, qui 
asserunt, fidem nostram eo, tanquam 
in ultimam credendi causam, redu- 
cendam esse, ut credamus ecclesiam 
esse veracem: [cui prius, inquiunt, 
assentimur per fidem acquisitam 
quam per infusam.]—Melch. Can[us, } 
de locis Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. [p. 54. 
ed. Lovan. 1569. } 

4 Heclesie vox non est [ipsum] 
formale fidei objectum. [Probatur 1. 
quia absque ea fides haberi potest .... 
probatur 2. quia sola ejus vox et 
auctoritas ad veri nominis fidem non 
potest inducere.|—Stapleton. Relect. 
[Scholast. Princip. fid. doct.] Con- 
troy. iv. [Capit. de potest. Eccles. in 
se consid.] Queest. iii. Art. 2. [Op., 
tom. i. p. 752.)—And, [ (Arg. heeret. 
5.) Si Deus per Heclesiam revelans est 
ultima resolutio fidei, et consequen- 
ter infallibilis regula omniam creden- 
dorum ; profecto hoc ipsum non debet 
inter articulos fidei, qui sunt res re- 
gulate, poni. Ponitur autem. Ergo, 
ἃς. Patet minor, quia in Sym- 
bolo profitemur, Credo LEcclesiam 
Sanctam, &e. hoe est, Credo omnia 
que Deus per Ecclesiam me docet. 
Patet major, ὅσο. .. . (Respons. ad arg. 
heeret. 5.) ... Dupliciter respondetur : 
Primum, non esse proprie distinctum 
articulum fidei, Quod Deus per Ecele- 
siam revelat, nec illud] in his verbis 
[contineri,] Credo LEeclesiam, etsi 
[enim] forte contineatur hoe totum, 
Credo ea, quae docet Ecclesia, tamen 
non intelligitur mnecessario quod 
Credo docenti Ecclesiz tanquam testi 
infallibili : [sunt enim hee distincta, 
ut notavit Waldensis, Doctrin. Fid. 


The learned of your own part grant this :4 


lib. ii. cap. 20.—Stapleton.] ibid. [pp. 
754, 755.]—Ubi etiam [Stapleton] 
rejicit opinionem Durandi et Gabr. 
[ Biel. se. his verbis: (Arg. Scholast. 
3.) Credo Deum esse trinum et unum, 
quia Scriptura sic dicit. Credo dicenti 
Scripture, quia Dei verbum est. 
Credo esse Dei verbum, quia Eeclesia 
hoe testatur. Credo Lcclesix sic 
attestanti, quia credo LEcclesiam 
regi infallibiliter a Spiritu 5, Ergo 
a primo ad ultimum primum inter 
eredibilia quod est ratio credendi 
alia, et ad quod fit ultima resolutio 
credibilium, est, Credere Ecclesiam 
regi a Spiritu S. Sunt argumenta 
Durandi in III. Sentent. Distinct. 
xxiv. Quest. 1. et Gabrielis Biel. ibid. 
Distinct. xxiii. Quest. 2.... (Respons. 
ad arg. Scholast. 3.) ... Ultima resolu- 
tio credibilium non est, Credere Eccle- 
siam regi a Spiritu 8., nam adhue 
amplius queeri potest, quare credimus 
Eeclesiam regi a Spiritu 5, Cui 
necessario respondendum est, ideo 
nos hoe credere quia Deus nobis hoe 
complexum per Hcclesiam sive in 
Scripturis sive extra revelayit. Sic 
enim alia omnia fidei objecta credo. 
Ultima igitur resolutio eredibilium 
quoad nos, et posita Dei ordinatione, 
et ordinarie loquendo, est Deus per 
ecclesiam revelans ; sed absolute, et 
per se, ultima resolutio est Deus 
verax, seu Deus intus in corde reve- 
lans, juxta illud Joann. Baptist. Quem 
misit Deus, verba Dei loquitur, &c. 
Joann. iii.384.—Stapleton.ibid. p. 754. | 
—Et [Stapleton. rejicit opinionem| 
Waldens, [ubi ait: Fides autem ut est 
Keclesize Catholicze in hoc accedit 
fidei Scripturarum: quod non licet 
de ipsa dubitare eo quod] testimo- 
nium ecclesize Catholicee est objectum 
fidei Christiane, et legislatio Serip- 


7 


SrctTion 
XVI. 


3 


74 Df it were a part, would be of more authority than the whole, and 


Coyrerencre “ Although in that article of the Creed, ‘I believe the 


WITH 
ἘΊΒΗΕΚ. 


Catholic Church,’ peradventure all this be contained, ‘I 
believe those things which the Church teacheth,’ yet this is 
not necessarily understood, That I believe the Church teach- 
ing, as an infallible witness.” And if they did not confess 
this, it were no hard thing to prove. 

V.—But here is the cunning of this device. All the au- 
thorities of Fathers, Councils, nay of Scripture too," though 
this be contrary to their own doctrine, must be finally 
resolved into the authority of the present Roman Church ; 
and though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers 
and the Church of old, yet they will not have us take their 
doctrine from their own writings, or the decrees of councils : 
because, as they say, we cannot know by reading them 
what their meaning was, but from the infallible testimony of 
the present Roman Church teaching by tradition. Now, by 
this, two things are evident. First, That they ascribe as 
ereat authority, (if not greater,) to a part of the Catholic 
Church, as they do to the whole, which we believe in our 
Creed, and which is the society of all Christians. And this 
is full of absurdity, in nature, im reason, in all things, That 
any part’ should be of equal worth, power, credit, or 


turee canonice. Subjicitur tamen 
ipsi sicut testis judici, et testimo- 
nium veritati; [sicut praeconizatio 
definitioni et sicut preeco regi.— 
Thom. Waldens.] Doctrinalis Fidei, 
TOM 4 εἶν 10. 1π|| alte Ἢ Caps eae 
[fol. 103. col. 4. ed. Paris. 1532.]— 
[Et tamen Ecclesia proponens est 
causa, sine qua ego non admitterem 
illud Evangelium esse Mattheei. Spi- 
ritu itaque S. ecclesiam afflatam certe 
credo; non ut veritatem auctorita- 
temve libris canonicis tribuat, sed 
ut doceat illos, non alios, esse cano- 
nicos.] Nee si Ecclesia nobis aditum 
prebet ad hujusmodi sacros libros 
cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquies- 
cendum est; sed ultra oportet pro- 
gredi, et solida Dei veritate niti. 
[Qua ex re intelligitur quid sibi 
voluerit Augustinus, (contra epist. 
Fundamenti,) cum ait, Evangelio non 
erederem nisi me Ecclesizv moveret 
auctoritas. |—Melch. Canus, de loe. 
Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. [p. 59. ed. 
Lovan. 1569. ] 

τ Omnis ergo ecclesiastica aucto- 





ritas, cum sit ad testificandum de 
Christo, et legibus Ejus, vilior est 
Christi legibus, et Seripturis sanctis 
necessario postponenda. — Thom. 
Wald. Doctrinalis Fidei, tom. i. lib. ii. 
art. ii. cap. 21. [fol. 103. col. 1. ubi 
sup. ] 

5. Totum majus est sua parte. 
Axioma [est item logicum in dis- 
tributionis loco proprium,] nec 
ideo geometricum putandum est, 
quia geometres eo utatur. Utitur 
enim tota logica, [nec ideo logicam 
subjeceris geometriv.—Petr.] Rami, 
Scholfarum] Math{ematicarum, lib, 
vil. 9. p. 164. ed. Basil. 1569. ]— 
And Aristotle vindicates such pro- 
positions, τὰ ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασι καλού- 
μενα ἀξιώματα, from being usurped 
by particular sciences, ἅπασι γὰρ ὑπάρ- 
χει, &e. Quia conveniunt omni 
enti, et non alicui generi separatim.— 
Metaph[ysie. lib. iii. (al. iv.) ] eap. 3. 
[in init. Λεκτέον δὲ, πύτερον μιᾶς ἢ 
ἑτέρας ἐπιστήμης, περί τε τῶν ἐν 
τοῖς μαθήμασι καλουμένων ἀξιωμάτων, 
καὶ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας. Φανερὸν δὴ, ὅτι 


75 


all Evidence would be resolved into the Infallibility of the Church. 
authority with the whole. Secondly, That in their doctrme ὅποτιον 
ΧΗΣ 


concerning the infallibility of their Church, their proceeding 
is most unreasonable. For if you ask them, Why they 
believe their whole doctrine to be the sole true Catholic 
faith ? their answer is, Because it is agreeable to the word 
of God, and the doctrine and tradition of the ancient Church. 
If you ask them, How they know that to be so? they will 
then produce testimonies of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers. 
But if you ask a third time, By what means they are assured, 
that these testimonies do indeed make for them and their 
cause? they will not then have recourse to text of Scrip- 
ture, or exposition of Fathers, or phrase and propriety of 
language in which either of them were first written, or to 
the scope of the author, or the causes‘ of the thing uttered, 
or the conference with like places," or the antecedents* and 
consequents of the same places; or the exposition of the 


μιῶς Te Kal τῆς τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ ἣ 
περὶ τούτων ἐστὶ σκέψις᾽ ἅπασι γὰρ 
ὑπάρχει τοῖς οὖσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γένει τινὶ 
χωρὶς ἰδίᾳ τῶν ἄλλων. Καὶ χρῶνται 
μὲν πάντες, ὅτι τοῦ ὄντος ἐστὶν 7H ὄν, 
ἔκαστον δὲ τὸ γένος ὄν"---Ορ., tom. 
viii. p. 62. ed. Bekker. ] 

τ Intelligentia [enim] dictorum ex 
causis est assumenda dicendi; quia 
non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo 
subjectus.—S. Hilar. lib. iv. Leap. 14. ] 
de Trinit. [Op., col. 835. F. ed. 
Benedict.] — [Sic etsi carnem ait 
nihil prodesse,] ex materia dicti 
dirigendus est sensus.—Tertull. lib. 
de Resur. Carnis, cap. xxxvii. [p. 347. 
ed. Rigalt. ] 

u [Et vide quoniam quedam qui- 
dem similia habent, alia autem 
dissimilia: ut] videns differentias 
similium ad similia, (discas sensum 
Scripturee.|—Origen. Tract. xix. in S. 
Matth. [Op., Lat. per Erasm. tom. ii. 
p. 112. ἐξεθέμην δὴ τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
Ἢσαϊΐου ἄσμα, βουλόμενος αὐτὸ συνεξε- 
τάσαι τῇ παραβολῇ, εἰ κατὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ 
κεῖται 6 ἀμπελὼν σημαινομένου ἐν 
ἑκατέρᾳ τῇ γραφῇ καὶ ὅρα τίνα μὲν 
ὅμοια ἔχουσιν αἱ ἐκτεθεῖσαι λέξεις, 
τίνα δὲ οὐχ ὅμοια, ἵνα βλέπων τὰς 
διαφορὰς τῶν ὁμοίων πρὸς τὰ ἀνόμοια, 
οὕτως ἐπιστήσης τῷ νῷ τῆς γραφῆς. 
—Comment. in Matth. tom. xvii. 
cap. 7. Op., tom. iii. p. 775. D. ed. 
Benedict. | 

x [Sed] recolendum est unde vene- 
rit illa sententia, et quze illam supe- 
riora pepererint, quibusque connexa 


dependeat.—S. Aug. Ep. xxix. [lib. ii, 
ad Hieronym. seu Epist. clxvii. cap. 
3. Op., tom. ii. par. 2. col. 595. G. ed. 
Benedict. |—Solet circumstantiaScrip- 
turz illuminare sententiam, [cum ea 
que circa Scripta (se. Seripturam) sunt, 
preesentem queestionem contingentia, 
diligenti discussione tractantur.|—S. 
Augustin. lib. Octogintatrium Quees- 
tionum, Queest. 69. [cap. 2. Op., tom. 
vi. col. 56. C. ed. Benedict. 

Υ Quee ambigue et obscure in non- 
nullis Scriptursee Sacre locis dicta 
videntur, per ea, quee alibi certa et 
indubitata habentur, declarantur.— 
S. Basil. in regulis contractis, Reg. 
267. [Τὰ ἀμφίβολα καὶ ἐπικεκαλυμ- 
μένως εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα ἔν τισι τόποις 
τοῦ θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς, ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν 
ἄλλοις τόποις ὁμολογουμένων σαφηνίζε- 
ται.-- ὃ. Basil. Regul. brevius tractat. 
Interrog. celxvii. Op., tom. ii. p. 506. 
E. ed. Benedict.|—[Et hee itaque 
dispectio tituli, et praeconii ipsius, 
fidem utique defendens yocabulorum, 
illue proficere debebit, ut si quid 
pars diversa turbat obtentu figurarum 
et znigmatum,] manifestiora quaeque 
preevaleant, et de incertis certiora 
prescribant. —Tertull. de Resurrec- 
tione [Christi], cap. xix. [Op., p. 336. 
C. ed. Rigalt. |—Et, [Et ntique equum 
sit, quod et supra demandayimus, 
incerta de certis et obscura de mani- 
festis preejudicari; vel ne inter dis- 
cordiam certorum et incertorum, 
manifestorum et obscurorum, fides 
dissipetur, veritas periclitetur, ipsa 


76 


Proof of Divinity of Scripture must be itself divine. 


Coyrrrencr dark and doubtful places of Scripture by the undoubted and 


WITH 
FiIsHEr. 


manifest ; with divers other rules given for the true know- 
ledge and understanding of Scripture, which do frequently 
occur in §8. Augustine.? No, none of these, or the lke 
helps : that, with them, were to admit a “ private spirit,’’ or to 
make way for it. But their final answer is: “They know it 
to be so, because the present Roman Church witnesseth it, 
according to tradition.” So arguing primo ad ultimum, 
“from first to last,’ the present Church of Rome and her 
followers believe her own doctrine and tradition to be true 
and Catholic, because she professes it to be such. And if 
this be not to prove idem per idem, “ the same by the same,” 
I know not what is: which, though it be most absurd in all 
kind of learning, yet out of this I see not how it is possible 
to wind themselves, so long as the last resolution of their 
faith must rest, as they teach, upon the tradition of the 


present Church only. 


VI.—It seems therefore to me very necessary,* that we 
be able to prove the books of Scripture to be the Word of 


God, by some authority that is absolutely divine. 


For if 


they be warranted unto us by any authority less than 
divine, then all things contained in them, which have no 


divinitas ut inconstans denotetur. 
—ibid.] cap. xxi. [p. 357. C.]—[ Ubi 
autem apertius ponuntur, ibi discen- 
dum est quomodo in locis intelligan- 
tur obscuris. Neque enim melius 
potest intelligi quod dictum est Deo, 
Apprehende arma et scutum, et 
exurge in adjutorium mihi, quam ex 
illo loco ubi legitur, Domine, ut 
scuto bone voluntatis Tuze coronasti 
nos. ]—S. Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. iii. 
cap. 26. [Op., tom. 111. par. 1. col. 56. 
B. |—Moris est Scripturarum, obscuris 
manifesta subnectere, et quod prius 
sub eenigmatibus dixerint, aperta 
voce proferre.—S. Hieron. in Hsa. xix. 
[in] princip. [Op., tom. iii. col. 127, ed. 
Benedict.]— Vide [infra,] Sect. 26. 
§. iv. 

z (S. Angustine’s rules, according 
to the marginal synopsis in the Bene- 
dictine edition, are: Ante omnia 
considerandum genus locutionis. — 
Idem verbum non idem significat 
ubique.—Obscura ex locis apertiori- 
bus explicanda. — Eundem locum 
varie intelligi nihil prohibet.—Locus 
incertus tutins per alios Scripture 


locos quam per rationem manifes- 
tatur.—Troporum cognitio necessaria, 
&c.]—S. Aug. de Doctr. Christ. lib. 
111. [cap. 22—29. Op., tom. iii. par. 1. 
col. 55—57. | 

* And this is so necessary, that 
Bellarmine confesses, that if tradition, 
which he relies upon, be not Divine, 
he and his can have no faith: Non 
habemus fidem ; fides enim verbo Dei 
nititur.—De verbo Dei non scripto, 
lib. iv. cap. 4. [Bellarmine’s words 
are: Itaque hoc dogma tam necessa- 
rium, quod scilicet aliqua est Scrip- 
tura Divina, non potest sufficienter 
haberi ex sola Scriptura. Proinde 
cum fides nitatur verbo Dei, nisi 
habeamus verbum Dei non scriptum, 
nulla nobis erit fides——Op., tom. i. 
col. 175. B.J—And A. C. tells us, 
p. 47: “To know that Scripture is 
Divine and infallible in every part, 
is a foundation so necessary, as, if it 
be doubtfully questioned, all the faith 
built upon Scripture falls to the 
ground.” And he gives the same 
reason for it, p. 50. [ubi sup. p. 70.] 
which Bellarmine doth. 


The Authority of the Church is not “ simply” Divine. 77 


greater assurance than the Scripture, in which they are  Srcrioy 
read, are not objects of divine belief. And that once patie 
granted will enforce us to yield, That all the articles of 
Christian belief have no greater assurance than human or 

moral faith or credulity can afford. An authority, then, 
simply divine, must make good the Scripture’s infallibility, 

at least in the last resolution of our faith in that point. 

This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the 
Church” alone. For the Church consists of men subject to 

error; and no one of them, since the Apostles’ times, hath 

been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed 
Spirit, as to secure him from being deceived. And all the 

parts being all liable to mistaking, and fallible, the whole 
cannot possibly be infallible in and of itself, and privi- 

leged from being deceived in some things or other. And 

even in those fundamental things in which the whole 
universal Church neither doth nor can err, yet even there 

her authority is not Divine, because she delivers those 
supernatural truths by promise of assistance, yet tied to 
means; and not by any special immediate revelation, 
which is necessarily required to the very least degree of 
Divine authority. And therefore our worthies do not only 

say, but prove, “That all the Church’s constitutions are of 

the nature of human law.”° And some among you,? not 
unworthy for their learning, prove it at large, “‘ That all the 
Church’s testimony, or voice, or sentence,”—call it what you 
will,— “is but suo modo, or aliquo modo, ‘not simply, but in 

a manner,’ divine.” Yea, and A. C. himself, after all his A.C. p.51. 


> Spiritu [itaque Sancto] ecclesiam 
afflatam, certe credo; non ut veri- 
tatem auctoritatemve libris canonicis 
tribuat, sed ut doceat illos, non alios, 
esse canonicos. Nec si Keclesia nobis 
aditum preebet ad hujusmodi sacros 
libros cognoscendos, protinus ibi 
acquiescendum est; sed ultra oportet 
progredi, et solida Dei veritate niti. 
Qua ex re intelligitur quid sibi volue- 
rit Augustinus, cum ait, Evangelio 
non crederem, nisi [me Ecclesize move- 
ret auctoritas.|—M. Canus, de locis 
theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. fol. 34. B. [p. 59. 
ubi sup. p. 74. note 4.]—Non [ita- 
que] docet fundatam esse Evangelii 
fidem in Ecclesize auctoritate, verum 
[simpliciter nullam esse certam viam 
qua sive infideles, seu in fide novitii, 


ad sacros libros ingrediantur, nisi 
Heclesize Catholicee unum eundemque 
consensum. |—Ibid. [p. 60. 

© Hooker. [Hecl. Polit.] Book iii. 
chap. ix. [Sect. 2. Works, vol. i. 
p. 481. ed. Keble‘ The greatest 
among the school divines (sc. Thom. 
Aquin. Prim. Sec. Queest. xci. Art. 3.) 
studying how to set down by exact 
definition the nature of an human 
law, (of which nature all the Church’s 
constitutions are,) found not which 
way better to do it than in these 
words: ‘ Out of the precepts of the 
law of nature, as out of certain com- 
mon and undemonstrable principles, 
man’s reason, &c.’” 

4 Stapl. Relect. Controv. iv. Q[ueest. | 
iii, Art. 1. 2. [ubi sup. p. 73. note 2] 


78 


This Proof must be the Word of God. 


Coxrrrence debate, comes to that, and no further, “That the tradition of 


WITH 
Fisuenr. 


A.C. p. 49. 


SAY C.5p 5/50: 


ACC pan. 


Gal. iii. 
(19.] 
Luke i. 30. 


the Church is, at least in some sort, divine and infallible.” 
Now, that which is divine but in a sort or manner, be it the 
Church’s manner, is aliguo modo non divina, “in a sort not 
divine.” But this great principle of faith, the ground and 
proof of whatsoever else is of faith, cannot stand firm 
upon a proof that is and is not—in a manner and not ina 
manner—divine ; as it must, if we have no other anchor than 
the external tradition of the Church to lodge it upon, and 
hold it steady in the midst of those waves which daily beat 
upon it. 

VII.—Now, here A. C. confesses expressly, “That to prove 
the books of Scripture to be divine, we must be warranted 
by that which is infallible.’ He confesses farther, “ That 
there can be no sufficient infallible proof of this, but God’s 
word, written or unwritten.” And he gives his reason for 
it : ‘ Because if the proof be merely human and fallible, the 
science or faith which is built upon it can be no better.” 
So then this is agreed on by me, (yet leaving other men to 
travel by their own way, so be they can come to make 
Scripture thereby infallible,) That Scripture must be known 
to be Scripture by a sufficient, infallible, dive proof. And 
that such proof can be nothing but the word of God, is 
agreed on also by me. Yea, and agreed on for me it shall 
be likewise, that God’s word may be written and unwritten. 
For Cardinal Bellarmine’ tells us truly, that it is not the 
writing or printing, that makes Scripture the word of God; 
but it is the prime unerring essential truth, God Himself 
uttering and revealing it to His Church, that makes it 
verbum Dei, “the word of God.” And this word of God 
is uttered to men, either immediately by God Himself, 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and so it was to the Prophets 
and Apostles ; or mediately,—-either by Angels, to whom God 
had spoken first, and so the law was given,‘ and so also the 
message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin,—or by the 


e [Et similiter Apostolice tradi- 
tiones non scripte eandem vim 
habent, quam Apostolicz traditiones 
seripte, ut in Concil. Trident. Sess. 
iv. asseritur, et ratio est manifesta: 
nam] yerbum Dei non est tale, nec 
habet ullam auctoritatem, quia 
scriptum est in membranis, sed quia 


a Deo profectum est, [vel immediate, 
ut sunt sermones Domini, vel median- 
tibus Apostolis, ut est decretum 
Apostolorum, Act. xv.]—Bellarmin. de 
verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 2. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 167. B.] 

* Lex ordinata per angelos in 
manu Mediatoris.—Gal. iii. 19. 


— 


The Word of God may be written or unwritten. 


Prophets? and Apostles, and so the Scriptures were delivered 
to the Church. But their being written, gave them no 
authority at all in regard of themselves: written or un- 
written, the word was the same. But it was written that 
it might be the better preserved," and continued with the 
more integrity to the use of the Church, and the more 
faithfully in our memories! And you have been often 
enough told, (were truth, and not the maintaining of a 
party, the thing you seek for,) that if you will show us any 
such unwritten word of God delivered by His Prophets and 
Apostles, we will acknowledge it to be divine and infallible. 
So, written or unwritten, that shall not stumble us. But, 
then A. C. must not tell us, at least not think we shall 
swallow it into our belief, that everything which he says is 


the unwritten word of God, is so indeed. 
VIII.—I know Bellarmine hath written a whole book, De 
verbo Dei non scripto,s “of the Word of God not written,” in 


® «The Holy Ghost, &c. which spake 
by the prophets,”—in Symb. Nicen. 

h Nam pseudoprophete etiam vi- 
ventibus adhuce Apostolis, multas 
fingebant corruptelas, sub hoe pre- 
textu et titulo, quasi ab Apostolis 
viva voce essent traditee, [sicut supra 
ostendimus:] et propter hance ipsam 
causam Apostoli doctrinam suam 
coeperunt literis comprehendere, et 
Ecclesiis commendare.—Chem[nitii,] 
Exam. Concil. Trid. de Traditionibus, 
sub octavo genere Tradit. [par. 1. p. 76. 
col. 2. ed. Geneyv. 1614.]|—And go also 
[Corn.] Jansen. in S. Johan. v. 47. 
{Com. in Concord. Evang. cap. xxxvi. 
in fin. p. 249. ed. Lovan. 1571.] Sicut 
enim firmius est quod mandatur literis, 
ita est culpabilius et majus non credere 
scriptis, quam non credere verbis. 

i {Ad primum in oppositum quod] 
labilis est memoria, et ideo indigemus 
Scriptura: Dicendum quod verum 
est, sed hoe non habet, nisi ex inun- 
dantia peccatorum.—Henr. a Gand. 
Summ. part. i. Art. viii. Q[ueest.] 4. 
[ὃ 10. tom. i. p. 166. ed. Ferrariz, 
1646.—Henricus, cognomine Goethals 
-.--gente Flander, Gandavyensis a 
patria dictus, Mudam, prope Ganda- 
vum vicum natalem nactus.... cla- 
ruit anno 1280, diu in collegio 
Sorbonico philosophiam et theologiam 
docuit tanta cum laude ut.... Doctor 
Solennis appellari meruit....—Caye, 
Historia literaria, (Seeculum Scholast.) 


tom. ii. p. 326. Cf. Fr. Huet, Recher- 
ches, &c. sur Henri de Gand: Gand, 
1838.]—[Sed ut quid pulsamus ad 
coelum, cum habeamus hie in Evan- 
gelio testamentum? Quia hoe loco 
recte possunt terrena ccelestibus com- 
parari: tale est quod quivis homi- 
num habens numerosos filios, quam- 
diu pater preesens est, ipse imperat 
singulis ; non est adhue necessarium 
testamentum : sic οὐ] Christus, [quam- 
diu preesens in terris fuit, quamvis 
nec modo desit, pro tempore quic- 
quid necessarium erat Apostolis 
imperavit. Sed quomodo terrenus 
pater, dum se in confinio senserit 
mortis, timens ne post mortem suam, 
rupta pace, litigent fratres, adhibitis 
testibus,] voluntatem suam de pec- 
tore morituro transfert in tabulas 
diu duraturas: [et si fuerit inter 
fratres nata contentio, non itur ad 
tumulum, sed queeritur testamentum : 
et qui in tumulo quiescit, tacitus de 
tabulis loquitur. Vivus, cujus est 
testamentum, in ceelo est: ergo volun- 
tas Ejus, velut in testamentum, sic in 
Eyangelio requiratur.]|—Optat. [M1i- 
levit. de Schism. Donatist.] lib. v. 
[cap. 3. Op., p. 81. ed. Dupin.—i. e.] 
Christus Ipse non transtulit, sed ex 
Optati sententia, Ejus inspiratione, 
si non jussu, Apostoli transtulerunt. 


K Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripto, 
lib. iy. 


i 


SECTION 
XVI. 


9 


80 


The Unwritten Word not identical with Tradition. 


Coxrexence Which he handles the controversy concerning traditions. 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


Acts i. 3. 


And the cunning is, to make his weaker readers believe, 
that all that which he and his are pleased to call traditions, 
are by and by no less to be received and honoured than the 
unwritten word of God ought to be. Whereas, it is a 
thing of easy knowledge, that the “unwritten word of God,” 
and “tradition,” are not convertible terms, that is, are not all 
one. For there are many unwritten words of God, which 
were never delivered over to the Church, for aught appears : 
and there are many traditions, affirmed, at least, to be such 
by the Church of Rome, which were never warranted by 
any unwritten word of God. 

IX.—First, That there are many unwritten words of God, 
which were never delivered over to the Church, is manifest. 
For when or where were the words which Christ spake to 
His apostles, during the “ forty days” of His conversing with 
them after His resurrection, first delivered over to the Church ? 
or what were the unwritten words He then spake? If neither 
He, nor His Apostles or Evangelists, have delivered them to 
the Church, the Church ought not to deliver them to her 
children. Or if she do tradere non traditum, “make a tra- 
dition of that which was not delivered to her,” and by some 
of them, then she is unfaithful to God, and doth not servare 
depositum, “faithfully keep that which is committed to her 
trust.’ And her sons, which come to know it, are not 
bound to obey her tradition against the word of their Father.” 
For wheresoever Christ holds His peace, or that His words are 
not registered, I am of 5. Augustine’s" opinion, “ No man 


1 Annunciare [ergo] aliquid Christ- 
janis Catholicis, preter id quod 


_ acceperunt, nunquam licuit, nusquam 


licet, nunquam  licebit. — Vincen. 
Lirin. cap. xiv. [p. 25. ]|—Et preecepit 
nihil aliud innovari, nisi quod tradi- 
tum est.—S. Cyprian. ad Pompeium 
cont. Epist. Stephan. [in] princip. 
[Epist. lxxiy. p. 138. ed. Benedict. ] 

m (Sie certe fidelis Sacra Scriptura 
cognita, et in ipsa Christo invento, 
plus verbis Christi in ea credit, quam 
cuicunque preedicatori, quam etiam 
Ecelesiz testificanti, quia propter 
illam jam credit Heclesiz, et] si ipsa 
[quidem] contraria Scripture diceret, 
ipsi non crederet.—Henr. a Gand. 
Summ. part.i. Art.x. Q[ueest.] 1.[§10. 


tom. i. p. 183.]—And Bellarmine him- 
self, that he might the more safely 
defend himself in the cause of tradi- 
tions, says, (but how truly let other 
men judge:) Deinde commune est 
[iisdem sic agere, quasi ipsi Scripturas 
tantum, nos traditiones tantum defen- 
damus, neque curemus, an traditiones 
sint secundum Scripturam, an contra 
Scripturam: at non ita est; nam 
Scripturam nos pluris facimus quam 
111,7] nee ullam traditionem admitti- 
mus contra Scripturam.—Lib. iv. de 
verbo Dei {non scripto,] cap. 3. § 7. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 169. B.] 

n §. Augustin. in S. Johan, Evang. 
[cap. xvi. 12.] Tractat. xcvi. in illa 
verba, Multa habeo [vobis] dicere, sed 


Different senses of the word Tradition. 


may dare without rashness say they were these, or these.” 
So, there were many unwritten words of God, which were 
never delivered over to the Church; and therefore never 
made tradition. And there are many traditions, which can- 
not be said to be the unwritten word of God. For, I believe, 
a learned Romanist, that will weigh before he speaks, will 
not easily say, That to anoint or use spittle in baptism ; 
or to use three dippings in the use of that sacrament ; or 
divers other like traditions, had their rise from any word 
of God unwritten. Or if he be so hardy as to say so, it is 
gratis dictum, and he will have enough to do to prove it. 
So there may be an unwritten word of God, which is no 
tradition. And there are many traditions, which are no 
unwritten word of God. Therefore Tradition must be taken 
two ways :—either, as it is the Church’s act delivering, or 
the thing thereby delivered ; and then it is human authority, 
or from it, and unable infallibly to warrant divine faith, or 
to be the object of it: or else as it is the unwritten word 
of God; and then wherever it can be made to appear so, it 
is of divine and infallible authority, no question. But then 
I would have A. C. consider where he is in this particular. 
He tells us, We must know infallibly, that the books of 
Holy Scripture are divine, and that this must be done by 
unwritten tradition, but so, as that this tradition is the word 
of God unwritten. Now, let him but prove that this, or any 
tradition which the Church of Rome stands upon, is the 
word of God, though unwritten, and the business is ended. 


81 


SECTION 
NOVA: 


A.C. p. 49, 
[ubi sup. 
Ρ. 70.] 


But A. C. must not think, that because the tradition of the A. C. p.50. 


Church tells me these books are verbum Dei, “ God’s 
word ;” and that I do both honour and _ believe this 
tradition; that therefore this tradition itself is God’s 
word too, and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to 
work this belief in me. Therefore, for aught A. C. hath yet 
added, we must on with our inquiry after this great business, 


and most necessary truth. 


non potestis portare modo. [Op., tom. 
ili. par. ii. col. 733. C. Nune ergo 
que ista sint, que Apostoli tune 
portare non poterant, vultis forsitan 
scire. Sed quis nostrfiim anudeat 
eorum se dicere jam capacem, que 


VOL. II.—LAUD. 


illi capere non valebant?...Sed que- 
nam sint ista que Ipse non dixit, 
temerarium est velle praesumere ac 


dicere....Quae cum Ipse_ tacuerit, 
quis nostrim dicat, Ista vel illa 
sunt ?] 


G 


[Ὁ] sup. 


p. 70. ] 


82 


CoNFERENCE 


(2.) 


WITH 
FIsHER, 


The inward Light of Scripture no sufficient proof of its Divinity, 


X.—2. For the second way of proving that Scripture 
should be fully and sufficiently known, as by “ divine” and 
“infallible” testimony, lumine proprio, by the independency 
of that light which it hath in itself only, and by the witness 
that it can so give to itself, I could never yet see cause to 
allow. For as there is no place in Scripture that tells us, 
Such books, containing such and such particulars, are the 
Canon, and infallible will and word of God:° so, if there 
were any such place, that were no sufficient proof. For a 
man may justly ask another book to bear witness of that ; 
and again of that, another; and wherever it were written in 
Scripture, that must be a part of the whole: and no created 
thing can alone give witness to itself, and make it evident ; 
nor one part testify for another, and satisfy where Reason 
will but offer to contest; except those principles only of 
natural knowledge, which appear manifest by intuitive light 
of understanding, without any discourse: and yet they also 
to the weaker sort require induction preceding. Now this 
inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scrip- 
ture itself: and so the principles and the conclusion in this 
kind of proof should be entirely the same, which cannot be. 
Besides, if this “‘imward light ” were so clear, how could there 
have been any variety among the ancient believers touching 
the authority of S. James’ and 85. Jude’s Epistles,? and the 
Apocalypse,’ with other books which were not received for 


© Hooker, [ Eccl. Polit. ] book ii. ch. iv. 
[sect. 2. Works, vol.i. pp. 370, 371. ed. 
Keble. “ Finally, we all believe that the 
Scriptures of God are sacred, and that 
they have proceeded from God; our- 
selves we assure that we do right well 
in so believing. We have for this point 
a demonstration sound and infallible. 
But it is not the word of God which 
doth or possibly can assure us, that we 
do well to think it His word. For if 
any one book of Scripture did give 
testimony to all, yet still that Scrip- 
ture which giveth credit to the rest, 
would require another Scripture to 
give credit unto it; neither could we 
ever come to any pause whereon to 
rest our assurance this way: so that 
unless beside Scripture there were 
something which might assure us that 
we do well, we could not think we do 
well, no, not in being assured that 


Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of 
well-doing.” | 

Ρ [Τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἰάκωβον, 
οὗ ἢ; πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν 
ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται" ἰστέον δὲ ὡς 
νοθεύεται μέν οὐ πολλοὶ γυῦν τῶν πα- 
λαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν, ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς 
λεγομένης Ἰούδα, μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης 
τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν. |—Hu- 
seb, [Hist. Eccles. ] lib. ii. cap. 27. [in] 
fin. ed. Basil. 1549. [cap. 23. tom. i. 
p. 82. apud Hist. Eccl. Seript. ed. 
Reading. | 

4 [ἐν τοῖς νόθοις κατατετάχθω καὶ τοῦ 
Παύλου πράξεων ἡ γραφὴ ... ἔτι τε, ὡς 
ἔφην, ἡ Ἰωάννου ἀποκάλυψις εἰ φανείη, 
ἣν tives, ὡς ἔφην, ἀθετοῦσιν, ἕτεροι 
δὲ ἐγκρίνουσι τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοι5.]--- 
Euseb. { Hist. Eccles. ] lib. iii. cap. 25. 
{tom. i. p. 119. apud Hist. Eccl. Script. 
ed. Reading. ] 


lm ee ee πον... 


any more than Tradition can be its own witness. 


divers years after the rest of the New Testament? For, 
certainly, the light which is in the Scripture was the same 
then which now it is. And how could the Gospel of S. Bar- 
tholomew, of S. Thomas, and other counterfeit pieces, obtain 
so much credit with some, as to be received into the Canon, 
if the evidence of this light were either universal or infallible, 
of, and by, itself? And this though I cannot approve, yet 
methinks you may, and upon probable grounds at least. 
For I hope no Romanist will deny," but that there is as 
much light in Scripture, to manifest and make ostension of 
itself to be infallibly the written word of God, as there is 
in any tradition of the Church, that it is divine, and infal- 
libly the unwritten word of God. And the Scriptures 


83 


Srctron 


« 


saying from the mouths of the Prophets, “Thus saith the Isa. xliv. 2. 


Lord,” and from the mouths of the Apostles, that “the Holy 


et passim. 
Acts 


Ghost spake by them,” are at least as able and as fit to bear xxviii. 25. 


witness to their own verity, as the Church is to bear witness 
to her own traditions, by bare saying they come from the 
Apostles. And yourselves would never go to the Scripture 


to prove that there are traditions, as you do,’ if you do not 2 Thess. 


think the Scripture as easy to be discovered by “inbred light 
in itself,” as traditions by their “light.” And if this be so, 
then it is as probable at the least (which some of ours affirm) 
“That Scripture may be known to be the word of God by the 
light and lustre which it hath in itself,” as it is (which you 
affirm,) “That a tradition may be known to be such by the 
light which it hath in itself: which is an excellent propo- 
sition to make sport withal, were this an argument to be 
handled merrily. 

ΧΙ.- 8. For the third opinion and way of proving, either 
some think that there is no sufficient warrant for this, unless 
they fetch it from the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and so 


τ Except A. C., whose boldness 
herein I cannot but pity. For he de- 
nies this “ light” to the Scripture, and 
gives it to Tradition. His words are 
(p. 52): “Tradition of the Church is 
of a company, which by its own light 
shows [showeth—A. C.] itself to be 
infallibly [infallibly—caret A. C.] 
assisted [by Christ and His Holy 
Spirit], &¢.” 

5 In your Articles delivered to Dr. 
W[hite, ] to be answered. [‘D. White 


excepted against that part of the 
paper, wherein was said, That the 
word of God was partly written, 
partly unwritten, and would have 
nothing to be the word of God, but 
what is written in Scripture. M. 
Fisher, to justify that part of the 
paper, first alleged that text of 
5. Paul, Hold the traditions, &c.”— 
The Relation of the Conference, &c. 
p. 15.] And A.C. p. 52. [seu potius, 
p. 50. ubi sup. p. 70.] 


E2 


rile 11/5). 
Jude,ver. 3. 


84 


(3.) If it be said that the Holy Spirit testifies to the Divinity 


Coyrerence look in vain after special revelations, and make themselves, 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


by this very conceit, obnoxious, and easy to be led by all the 
whisperings of a “ seducing private spirit;” or else you would 
fain have them think so. For your side,’ both upon this and 
other occasions, do often challenge, “ That we resolve all our 
faith into the dictates of a private Spirit ;” from which we 
shall ever prove ourselves as free [as], if not freer than, you. 
To the question in hand then: Suppose it agreed upon that 
there must be a divine faith," cui subesse non potest falsum, 
“under which can rest no possible error,’ that the books 
of Scripture are the written word of God: if they which 
eo to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proof of this, do 
mean by faith, objectum fidei, “the object of faith” that is 
to be believed, then, no question, they are out of the ordinary 
way. For God never sent us by any word or warrant of His, 
to look for any such “special and private testimony” to 
prove which that book is, that we must believe. But if by 
faith they mean the habit, or act, of divine infused faith, 
by which virtue they do believe the credible object, and 
thing to be believed, then their speech is true, and con- 
fessed by all divines of all sorts. For faith is the “ gift of 
God,” * of God alone, and an “ infused habit,’ ¥ in respect 


t A Jesuit, under the name of T.S. 
[J.S.] set out a book, anno 1630, which 
he called, “The Triall of the Protestant 
private Spirit.” [The full title of this 
book is : “ The triall of the Protestant 
Private Spirit : wherein their doctrine 
making the sayd Spirit the sole 
grounde and meanes of their beliefe 
is confuted...'The Second Part which 
is doctrinall. Written by J. 8. of the 
Society of Jesus. Permissu superio- 
rum. mpoxxx.” Its author was J. Ser- 
geant: and in a Preface he explains 
how “ this Second Part gets birth and 
breath, and comes to light before the 
first.” ] 

ἃ Ut testimonia Scripturee certam 
et indubitatam fidem preestent, neces- 
sarium videtur ostendere, quod ipsee 
Divine Scripture sint Dei Spiritu 
inspiratee.—Origen. περὶ ἀρχῶν, lib. iv. 
[cap. 1. Rufin. interpret. Op., tom. i. 
p. 156. ed. Benedict. μαρτύρια τὰ ex 
τῶν πεπιστευμένων ἡμῖν εἶναι θείων γρα- 
φῶν, τῆς τε λεγομένης παλαίας διαθήκης, 
καὶ τῆς καλουμένης καινῆς, λόγῳ τε πει- 
ρώμεθα κρατύνειν ἡμῶν τὴν πίστιν.) 

x 1 Cor. xii. ὃ, 4.—[Supra dixerat, 


Sed sunt quidam ex yvobis qui non cre- 
dunt; et tanquam hujus rei causam 
exponens, Propterea dixi, inquit, 
vobis, quia nemo potest venire ad Me, 
nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre: ut osten- 
deret etiam ipsam fidem qua credit, et 
ex morte sui cordis anima reviviscit, | 
dari nobis a Deo, &c.—S. Augustin. 
{ Enarr.] in Psalm. ]xxxvii. [Op., tom. 
iv. col. 932. F. ed. Benedict. | 

y [Hane autem causam Pelagiani 
ponebant solum liberum arbitrium 
hominis; et propter hoe dicebant, 
quod initium fidei est ex nobis: in 
quantum sc. ex nobis est, quod parati 
sumus ad assentiendum his, que 
sunt fidei: sed consummatio fidei est 
a Deo, per quam nobis proponuntur 
ea que credere debemus. Sed hoe est 
falsum], quia [cum] homo, assentiendo 
his quee sunt fidei, elevetur supra 
naturam suam, oportet quod hoe insit 
ei ex supernaturali principio interius 
movente, quod est Deus: [et ideo 
fides quantum ad assentiendum, quod 
est principalis actus fidei, est a Deo in- 
terius movente per gratiam.|—Thom. 
[Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q|ueest.] vi. 


of Scripture, this is not true of the medium of proof. 


85 


whereof the soul is merely recipient ; and therefore the sole Sreron 


infuser, the Holy Ghost, must not be excluded from that 
work, which none can do but He. For the Holy Ghost, as 
He first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles,’ so did He 
not leave the Church in general, nor the true members of it 
in particular, without grace to believe what Himself had 
revealed and made eredible.* So that faith, as it is taken 
for the virtue of faith, whether it be of this or any other 
article, though “it receive a kind of preparation, or occasion 
of beginning, from the testimony of the Church, as it pro- 
poseth and induceth to the faith ; yet it ends in God, reveal- 
ing within, and teaching within, that which the Church 
preached without.” For till the Spirit of God move the 
heart of man, he cannot believe, be the object never so 


credible. 


The speech is true then, but quite out of the state 


of this question :° which inquires only after a sufficient means 
q 


A[rt.] 1. [in respons. |—And your own 
divines agree in this, that fides acqui- 
sita is not sufficient for any article, 
but there must be jides infusa, before 
there can be divine certainty. [Nec 
verus catholicus, quod nonnulli fin- 
gunt,assentitur huic, Ecclesia est verax, 
solum per] conjecturas humanas, qui- 
bus acquisita fides innititur. Ad quem 
modum et Saraceni suis preeceptori- 
bus, et Judzi suis rabbinis, et Gentes 
suis philosophis, et omnes [denique | 
suis majoribus inherent. Non sie, [in- 
quam,| Christiani; sed per interius 
lumen infusum a Spiritu Sancto, quo 
firmissime et certissime moventur ad 
credendum, [ecclesiam Christianam 
errare non posse.—Melchior] Canus, 
de loc. Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. ὃ Jam 
si hee, [p. 59.] 

2 Symbol. Nicen. “ The Holy Ghost, 
[ Who]spake by the prophets,” &¢.— Et 
1 Pet. ii. 21.—[Tu itaque, regnator cre- 
aturee tuze,| quis est modus, quo doces 
animas ea quee futura sunt? Docuisti 
enim prophetas Tuos.—S. Augustin. 
Confess. lib. xi. cap. 19. [Op., tom. i. 
col. 203. D.] 

@ [Calvini certo argumento respon- 
dens dixi:] Nec cum ecclesiz testi- 
monium aut judicium preedicamus, 
Dei Spiritum, vel ab ecclesia docente, 
vel a nobis audientibus, excludimus, 
[ut vel stultissime de nobis imaginan- 
tur, vel vafre et scelerate cogitare se 
fingunt Protestantes,| sed utrobique 
diserte includimus, &c.—Stapleton. 


Triplicatio adversus Whitakerum, 
[pro ecclesiz auctoritate,| cap. iii. 
{Op., tom. i. p. 1142. C.] 

> | Etsi pars objecti formalis sit vox 
ecclesiz, non tamen in fidem acqui- 
sitam resolvitur fides infusa, sed plane 
contra fides acquisita resolvitur in in- 
fusam: id est,| fides que ccepit ab 
ecclesiz testimonio, quatenus proponit 
et inducit ad fidem, desinit in Deo 
intus revelante et intus docente quod 
foris ecclesia preedicavit.—Stapleton. 
Relect. Controv. [ Controv.] iv. [46 po- 
testat. Eecl. inse, Q[ueest.] iii. A[rt.] 2. 
[vespons. ad argum. heret. Op., tom. 
i. p. 755. A.J—[“ Neither can 1 think 
that] when grave and learned men do 
sometime hold, that of this principle 
there is no proof but by the testimony 
of the Spirit, [which assureth our 
hearts therein,| it is their meaning to 
exclude [utterly] all force [which any 
kind] of reason may have in that 
behalf ; but [I] rather [incline to inter- 
pret such their speeches, as if they had 
more expressly set down, | that other 
motives and inducements, [be they 
never so strong and consonant with 
reason, | are [notwithstanding] unef- 
fectual of themselves to work faith 
[concerning this principle], if the 
special grace of the Holy Spirit concur 
not [to the enlightening of our 
minds.”] — Hooker, [πο]. Polit. ] 
book iii. ch. viii. [sect. 15. Works, 
vol. i. p. 476. ed. Keble. ] 

© De habitu fidei quoad fieri ejus 


ΧΟ. 


86 The medium of proof must be such as may be proposed to those without. 


Conrerence to make this object credible and fit to be believed, against 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


2. rule by man or angel. 


all impeachment of folly and temerity in belief, whether 
men do actually believe it or not. For which no man may 
expect inward private revelation without the external means 
of the Church, wnless perhaps the “ case of necessity” ¢ be 
excepted, when a man lives in such a time and place as ex- 
cludes him from all ordinary means; in which I dare not 
offer to shut up God from the souls of men, nor to tie Him 
to those ordinary ways and means to which yet in great 
wisdom and providence He had tied and bound all mankind. 

XII.—Private revelation, then, hath nothing ordinarily to 
do, to make the object credible in this, That Scripture is the 
word of God, or in any other article. For the question is of 
such outward and evident means, as other men may take 
notice of, as well as ourselves. By which, if there arise any 
doubting or infirmity in the faith, others may strengthen us, 
or we afford means to support them: whereas the testimony 
of the Spirit, and all private revelation, is within, nor felt nor 
seen of any but him’ that hath it.° So that hence can be 
drawn no proof to others. And miracles are not sufficient 
alone to prove it, unless both they, and the revelation too, 
agree with the rule of Scripture, which is now an unalterable 
To all this A. C. says nothing, save 
“that I seem not to admit of an infallible impulsion of a? 
private Spirit, ex parte subjecti, without any infallible reason, 


et generationem, quum a Deo imme- 
diate solo dono gratuito infusus est, 
nihil ad questionem, nisi quoad hoc 
quod per Scripture: inspectionem, &c. 
—Henr. a Gand. Summ. [part. i.] 
A[rt.] x. Q[ueest.] 1. 1). [§ 7. tom. i. p. 
182. His words are: De habitu fidei. .. 
nisi quo ad hoe, quod per Scripturee 
inspectionem, vel ecclesiz statum, et 
conversationem homini aliquo modo 
possit rationabiliter persuaderi, ut 
ei videatur assentiendum eis que 
Scriptura dictat aut ecclesia preedi- 
cat: et sic aliquo modo disponitur de 
congruo ad susceptionem habitus fidei 
munere divino. | 

4 Stapleton. Relect. Controy. iv. 
Queest. 111, Art. 2. [Op., tom. i. p. 755. 
A, B. ubi sup. note ».] doth not only 
affirm it, but proves it too, a paritate 
rationis, in ease of necessity, where 
there is no contempt of the external 
means. | His words are: Rursum, sicut 


sanctificatio impletur aliquando in- 
visibiliter, cum mysterium baptismi 
non contemptus religionis, sed arti- 
culus necessitatis, excludit, (ut seribit 
idem Augustinus de baptism. contra 
Donatist. lib. iv. cap. 22.] sic interna 
sola revelatio ad fidem aliquando 
efficaciter inducit, cum externa illa 
media non contemptus docentis eccle- 
sie, sed articulus aliquis necessitatis 
excludit : ut, videlicet, quia vel in 
eremo, vel inter paganos, &c. | 

© (Quoniam igitur divina providen- 
tia, non solum singulis hominibus 


" quasi privatim, sed universo generi 


humano tanquam publice, consulit, } 
quid cum singulis agatur, Deus scit 
quiagit, atque ipsi, cum quibus agitur, 
sciunt. Quid autem agatur cum ge- 
nere humano, per historiam commen- 
dari voluit, et per prophetiam.—S. 
Augustin, de vera Relig. cap. xxv. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 763. D.] 


(4.) Reason enlightened by Grace, its office in this proof. 


and that sufficiently applied, ew parte objecti, which if I did 
admit, would open a gap to all enthusiasms, and dreams of 
fanatical men.” Now for this yet I thank him. For I do 
not only “seem not to admit,” but I do most clearly reject, 
this frenzy in the words going before. 

XIII.—4. The last way, which gives reason leave to come 
in, and prove what it can,‘ may not justly be denied by any 
reasonable man. For though reason without grace cannot 
see the way to heaven, nor believe this book, in which God 
hath written the way; yet grace is never placed but in a 
reasonable creature, and proves by the very seat which it 
hath taken up, that the end it hath is to be spiritual eye- 
water, to make reason see what by “ nature only it cannot,’’¢ 
but never to blemish reason in that which it can, “compre- 
hend.” Now the use of reasonis very general; and man, 
do what he can, is still apt to search and seek for a reason 
why he will believe; though, after he once believes, his faith 
grows stronger than either his reason or his knowledge :" 


f Utitur tamen sacra doctrina [etiam] 
ratione humana, non quidem ad pro- 
bandum fidem ipsam, [quia per hoe 
tolleretur meritum fidei,| sed ad mani- 
festandum aliqua alia, que traduntur 
in hac doctrina — Thom. [Aquin. 
Summ. ] par. 1. Q[ueest.] i. A[rt.] 8. ad 
Secundum.—Passibus rationis novus 
homo tendit in Deum: [inquit] 5S. 
Augustin. de vera relig. cap. ΧΧΥΪ. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 764. F.] passibus, 
verum est, sed nec eequis, nec solis. 
[S. Augustine’s words are: Iste dicitur 
novus homo et interior et ccelestis, 
habens ex ipsa proportione, non annis, 
sed provectibus, distinctas quasdam 
spiritales states suas.|—[Ap TERTIUM 
dicendum, quod] invisibilia Dei altiori 
modo, quantum ad plura, percipit 
fides, quam ratio naturalis ex crea- 
turis in Deum procedens.—Thom. 
[Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[ueest. ] ii. 
A[rt. 8. respons.| ad Tertium. 

g Animalis homo non percipit.—1 
Cor. ii. 14. 

h Quia [alize] scientize certitudinem 
habent ex naturali lumine rationis 
humane, quae potest errare: [heec au- 
tem, sc.] Theologia, [quae docet et ob- 
jectum et notitiam fidei, sicut et fidem 
ipsam], certitudinem habet ex lumine 
divinee scientize,quee decipi non potest. 
—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. 
QJueest.i. A[rt.]5. [in respons. |—[Cum 


igitur etiam ego vicissim laudavero 
quod credo, et quod credisirrisero, quid 
putas nobis esse judicandum, quidve 
faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, 
qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, et 
postea imperant ut incerta credamus; 
et eos sequamur, qui nos invitant prius 
credere, quod nondum valemus intu- 
eri, | ut, ipsa fide valentiores facti, quod 
credimus intelligere mereamur, [non 
jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrin- 
secus mentem nostram illuminante 
atque firmante ?|—S. Augustin. contra 
Epistolam Manichei, quam vocant 
Fundamenti, cap. xiv. [Op., tom. vili. 
col. 160. D.|—Hoe autem ita intelli- 
gendum est, ut scientia certior sit 
certitudine evidentiz ; fides vero cer- 
tior firmitate adheesionis. Majus lu- 
men in scientia, majus robur in fide: 
et hoc, quia in fide, et ad fidem actus 
imperatus voluntatis concurrit. Cre- 
dere enim est actus intellectus vero 
assentientis productus [procedens] ex 
voluntatis imperio.—[Gabr.] Biel. in 
III. Sentent. Distinct. xxiii. Queest. ii. 
Art.1. [These are not, except in por- 
tions, the exact words of Gabriel Biel, 
but rather an account of his whole 
argument. Part of the quotation is 
to be found in Nic. de Lyra, apud 
Bibl. Sacr. cum Gloss. ordinar, &c. 
in Johan. iv. 42. se. Firmiter credere, 
quia in fide major est certitudo 


87 


Srcrron 
XVI. 


88 


What Reason can, and what it cannot, effect, 


Conrerence and great reason for this, because it goes higher, and so 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


upon a safer principle, than either of the other can in this life. 

XIV.—In this particular the books called the Scripture 
are commonly and constantly reputed to be the word of God, 
and so infallible verity to the least point of them. Doth any 
man doubt this? The world cannot keep him from going 
to weigh it at the balance of reason, whether it be the word 
of God or not. ΤῸ the same weights he brings the tradition 
of the Church, the inward motives in Scripture itself, all 
testimonies within, which seem to bear witness to it; and in 
all this there is no harm: the danger is when a man will 
use no other scale but reason, or prefer reason before any 
other scale. For the word of God, and the book containing 
it, refuse not to be weighed by reason. But the scale is not 
large enough to contain, nor the weights to measure out, the 
true virtue and full force of either. Reason, then, can give 
no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his 
faith, That Scripture is the word of God infallibly : yet 
Reason can go so high, as it can prove that Christian 
religion, which rests upon the authority of this book, stands 
upon surer grounds of nature, reason, common equity, and 
justice, than any thing in the world which any infidel or 
mere naturalist hath done, doth or can adhere unto, against 


adhzerentize, quam in scientia, quamvis 
non sit tanta certitudo evidentiz. And 
part occurs in Thom. Aquin. Secund. 
Secund. Queest. iv. Art. 1. vide infra, 
p. 119. note ».|—Unde Thom. [Aquin. 
inquit, [Ap Trertrum dicendum quod] 
Intellectus credentis determinatur ad 
unum, non per rationem, sed per volun- 
tatem ; et ideo assensus hie accipitur 
pro actu intellectus, secundum quod a 
voluntate determinatur ad unum.— 
Secund. Secund, Q[ueest.] ii. Afrt.] 1, 

i Si vobis, vation et veritati con- 
sentanea videntur, in pretio habete, 
&c. de mysteriis religionis.—Justin. 
Martyr. [Apolog. Prim. cap.] ii. 
[These words do not seem to be an 
exact translation of Justin Martyr, 
but an account of the general argu- 
ment of the exordium of his first Apo- 
logy. ]—Igitur, si fuit dispositio ra- 
tionis [super filium Dei ex virgine 
proferendum, cur non ex virgine ac- 
ceperit corpus, quod de virgine protu- 
lit?]—Tertull. lib. de Carne Christi, 


cap. xvii. C. [Op., p. 321. ed. Rigalt. ] 
—Rationabile est credere Deum esse 
autorem Scripturee.—Henr. a Gand. 
Summ. tom. i. Art. ix. Q[uest.] 3. 
[The statements in the Questio re- 
ferred to, upon which the conclusion 
referred to by Laud depends, seem 
these : — Quare cum sacra Scriptura 
directa dit humano generi a Deo per 
medios prophetas et apostolos et 
eorum successores: certitudo notitize 
veritatis hujus scientie non potest 
attribui alicui mediorum, nisi quia 
in ipso cognoscitur primum dirigens 
scilicet virtus divina refulgens in mi- 
raculis circa medios ad nos scientiam 
istam deferentes.—Art. ix. Quest. 3. 
δ 13. p. 180. Non est igitur incerta 
Dei auctoritas cirea hane Scripturam, 
nec leyitatis est ei credere.—Ibid. 
ὃ 14. p. 181. Conclusio 2. of this 
Queestio is: “ Rationale est eredere 
auctorem hujus scientize fuisse Deum.” 
—P. 181.] 


in supplying grounds of faith in the Divinity of Scripture. 


it, in that which he makes, accounts, or assumes as religion 
to himself. 

XV.—The ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures, no 
Christians more: and, having to do with philosophers (men 
very well seen in all the subtilties which natural reason could 
teach or learn), they were often put to it, and did as often 
make it good, that they had sufficient warrant to rely, so 
much as they did, upon Scripture. In all which disputes, 
because they were to deal with infidels, they did labour to 
make good the authority of the book of God by such argu- 
ments as unbelievers themselves could not but think reason- 
able, if they weighed them with indifferency. For though 
I set the mysteries of faith above reason, which is their 
proper place ; yet I would have no man think they contradict 
reason, or the principles thereof. No sure: for reason by 
her own light can discover how firmly the principles of 
religion are true; but all the light she hath will never be 
able to find them false. Nor may any man think that the 
principles of religion, even this, That Scriptures are the word 
of God, are so indifferent to a natural eye, that it may with 
as just cause lean to one part of the contradiction as to the 
other. For though this truth, That Scripture is the word 
of God, is not so demonstratively evident ὦ priori, as to 
enforce assent; yet it is strengthened so abundantly with 
probable arguments, both from the light of nature itself and 
human testimony, that he must be very wilful and self-con- 
ceited that shall dare to suspect it. 

XVI.—Nay, yet farther,« It is not altogether impossible 


k Hooker, [Eccl. Polit.] Book. iii. 
ch. viii. [sect. 14. Works, vol. i. 
pp. 575, 576. ed. Keble. “If infidels 
or atheists chance at any time to call 
it in question, this giveth us occasion 
to sift what reason there is, whereby 
the testimony of the Church concern- 
ing Scripture, and our own persuasion 
which Scripture itself hath confirmed, 
may be proved a truth infallible. In 
which case the ancient Fathers being 
often constrained to shew, what war- 
rant they had so much to rely upon 
the Scripture, endeavoured still to 
maintain the authority of the books 
of God by arguments such as unbe- 
lievers themselves must needs think 
reasonable, if they judged thereof as 


they should. Neither is it a thing 
impossible, or greatly hard, even by 
such kind of proofs so to manifest 
and clear that point, that no man 
living shall be able to deny it, with- 
out denying some apparent principle 
such as all men acknowledge to be 
true.”]—Si [enim] Plato ipse viveret, 
et me interrogantem non aspernare- 
tur, [vel potius, si quis ejus discipulus, 
eo ipso tempore quo vivebat, eum 
interrogaret,| &¢—S. Augustin. de 
vera Relig. cap. iii. [Op., tom. i. 
col. 748. C.J—[ Et quoniam de aucto- 
ritatis beneficentia, quantum in prz- 
sentia satis visum est, locuti sumus, ] 
videamus quatenus ratio possit pro- 
gredi a visibilibus ad invisibilia, [et 


89 


SECTION 
XVI. 


90 


Universal reception of the Gospel, a reasonable proof of its Divinity. 


Conrrrence to prove it, even by reason, a truth infallible, or else to make 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


Matt. xii. 
22 


them deny some apparent principle of their own. For 
example: It is an apparent principle, and with them, That 
God, or the absolute prime agent, cannot be forced out of 
any possession ; for if He could be forced by another 
ereater, He were neither prince, nor absolute, nor God,! in 
their own theology. Now they must grant, That that God 
and Christ, which the Scripture teaches, and we believe, is 
the only true God, and no other with Him, and so deny the 
Deity which they worshipped, or else deny their own prin- 
ciple about the Deity, That God cannot be commanded and 
forced out of possession. For™ “their gods, Saturn, and 
Serapis, and Jupiter himself, have been adjured by the 
name of the true and only God, and have been forced out 
of the bodies they possessed, and confessed themselves to be 
foul and seducing devils ; and their confession was to be 
supposed true in point of reason; for they that were 
adored as gods, would never belie themselves into devils, to 
their own reproach, especially in the presence of them that 
worshipped them, were they not forced.” This many of the 
unbelievers saw: therefore they could not, in very force of 
reason, but they must either deny their God, or deny their 
principle in nature. Their long custom would not forsake 
their God, and their reason could not forget their principle. 
If reason therefore might judge among them, they could not 
worship anything that was under command. And if it be 
reasonable to do and believe this, then why not reasonable 
also to believe, That Scripture is His Word, given to teach 
Himself and Christ, since there they find Christ “doing 


a temporalibus ad eterna conscen- 
dens. |—Ibid. cap. xxix. [60]. 766. A.] 

1 Si vim spectes, Deus valentissi- 
mus est.—Aristot. de Mundo, eap. vii. 
[Ταῦτα χρὴ καὶ περὶ θεοῦ διανοεῖσθαι, 
δυνάμει μὲν ὄντος ἰσχυροτάτου, κάλλει δὲ 
εὐπρεπεστάτου, κ. τ. λ.---Ορ., tom. ili. 
Ρ. 152. ed. Bekker.]—Domini et Mo- 
deratores omnium. — Cie. de Legg. 
flib.] ii. [eap. 7. His words are: 
Sit igitur hoe a principio persuasum 
civibus, dominos esse omnium ac 
moderatores Deos, eaque, que geran- 
tur, eorum geri ditione ac numine, &c. ] 

m Tpse Saturnus, et Serapis, et 
Jupiter, et quicquid Demonum coli- 


tis, victi dolore, quod sunt, eloquun- 
tur. Nee utique in turpitudinem sui, 
nonnullis preesertim vestrorum assis- 
tentibus, mentiuntur. Ipsis testibus 
esse eos Deemonas de se verum confi- 
tentibus credite. Adjurati enim per 
deum verum et solum, inviti, [miseri, 
corporibus inhorrescunt; et vel exi- 
liunt statim, vel evanescunt gradatim, 
prout fides patientis adjuvat, aut gratia 
curantis aspirat.]|—Arnob. viii. contra 
Gent. ; or Minutius Felix, as is now 
thought: [se. in Dialogo Min. Fel. 
qui inseribitur Octavius, cap. viii. 
p. 253. ed. Lugd. Bat. 1672.] 


All Sciences presuppose some admitted principles. 91 


that,” and “ giving power to do it after,” which themselves 
saw executed upon their devil-gods ? 

XVII.— Besides, whereas all other written laws have scarce iti ge 
had the honour to be duly observed, or constantly allowed 17. 
worthy approbation, in the particular places where they 
have been established for laws ; this law of Christ, and this 
canon of Scripture, the container of it, is, or hath been, 
received in almost all nations under heaven : and where- 
soever it hath been received, it hath been both approved for 
unchangeable good, and believed for infallible verity. This 
persuasion could not have been wrought in men of all sorts, 
but by working upon their reason, unless we shall think all 
the world unreasonable that received it. And certainly God 
did not give this admirable faculty of reasoning to the soul 
of man for any cause more prime than this, to discover, or 
to judge and allow, within the sphere of its own activity, 
and not presuming further, of the way to Himself, when and 
howsoever it should be discovered. 

XVIIT.—One great thing that troubled rational men, was 
that which stumbled the Manichee, (an heresy it was, but more 
than half pagan,) namely, That somewhat must be believed, 
before much could be known. Wise men use not to believe, 
but what they know; and the Manichee® scorned the 
orthodox Christian as light of belief, promising to lead no 
disciple after him, but upon evident knowledge. This 


SECTION 
ΧΎΥΙ. 


» (Tu in eos] libros, [qui] quoquo 
modo se habeant, sancti tamen divi- 
narum [que] rerum pleni prope totius 
generis humani confessione diffaman- 
tur, [sine duce irruis, et de his sine 
preeceptore audes ferre sententiam.|— 
S. Augustin. de utilitat. credendi, 
cap. vii. [Op., tom. viii. col. 56. B.|— 
[Civitatem Dei dicimus, cujus ea] 
Scriptura [testis est, quee non for- 
tuitis motibus animorum, sed plane] 
summe  dispositione providentie, 
super omnes omnium gentium lite- 
ras, omnia sibi genera ingeniorum 
humanorum divina excellens autho- 
ritate subjecit.—S. Augustin. de Civi- 
vate Dei, lib. xi. cap. i. [Op., tom. vii. 
col. 271. D. |—At [vero] in omni orbe 
terrarum, in Grecia, atque universis 
{exteris] nationibus, innumeri sunt 
et immensi, qui relictis patriis legi- 
bus, [et his quos putabant Deos,]| 


ad observantiam Moysis [legis et 
discipulatum se] Christi [cultumque 
tradiderunt.|—Origen. [Ruffin. inter- 
pret.| lib. iv. περὶ ἀρχῶν, cap. 1. [πᾶσα 
μὲν Ἑλλὰς καὶ βάρβαρος 7 κατὰ τὴν 
οἰκουμένην ἡμῶν, ζηλῶτας ἔχει μυρίους, 
καταλιπόντας τοὺς πατρῴους νόμους καὶ 
νομιζομένους θεοὺς, τῆς τηρήσεως τῶν 
Μωσέως νόμων, καὶ τῆς μαθητείας τοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Adywv.—Op., tom. i. 
p. 157. ed. Benedict. | 

° {Jam vero apud Hipponem—re- 
gium presbyter scripsi librum de 
utilitate Credendi, ad amicum meum 
quem deceptum a Manicheis, adhuc 
eo errore noveram detineri, et] irri- 
dere in Catholicze Fidei disciplina, 
quod juberentur homines credere, 
non autem [quid esset verum certis- 
sima ratione docerentur. |—S. Augus- 
tin. Retractat. lib. i. cap. 14. [Op., 
tom. i. col. 21. E.] 


92 


No one of these methods of Proof alone sufficient —Their relations 


Conrrrence stumbles many; but yet the principle, That somewhat must 


WITH 
FisHer. 


be believed before much can be known, stands firm in rea- 
son still. For, if in all sciences there be some principles 
which cannot be proved; if reason be able to see this, and 
confess it; if almost all artists have granted it; if in the 
mathematics, where are the exactest demonstrations, there 
be guedam postulata, some things to be first demanded and 
granted, before the demonstration can proceed; who can 
justly deny that to Divinity, a science of the highest object, 
God Himself, which he easily and reasonably grants to 
inferior sciences, which are more within his reach? And as 
all sciences suppose some principles without proving, so 
have they almost all some text, some authority, upon which 
they rely in some measure: and it is reason they should. 
For though these sciences make not their texts infallible, as 
Divinity doth; yet full consent, and prudent examination, 
and long continuance, have won reputation to them, and 
settled reputation upon them, very deservedly. And were 
these texts more void of truth than they are, yet it were fit 
and reasonable to uphold their credit, that novices and 
young beginners in a science, which are not able to work 
strongly upon reason, nor reason upon them, may have 
authority to believe, till they can learn to conclude from 
principles, and so to know. Is this also reasonable in other 
sciences, and shall it not be so in Theology, to have a text, 
a Scripture, a rule, which novices may be taught first to 
believe, that so they may after come to the knowledge of 
those things, which out of this rich principle and treasure 
are deducible?? 1 yet see not how right reason can deny 
these grounds; and if it cannot, then a mere natural man 
may be thus far convinced, That the text of God is a very 
credible text. 

XIX.—Well, these are the four ways, by most of which 


p And therefore 5. Augustin. de 
doct. Christ. lib. ii. cap. viii. would 
have men make themselves perfect in 
reading the letter of the Scripture, 
even before they understood it. [Erit 
igitur divinarum Scripturarum sol- 
lertissimus indagator, qui primo totas 
legerit,| notasque habuerit ; et si non- 
dum intellectu, [jam] tamen lectione, 


duntaxat [eas que appellantur Cano- 
nicze.—Op., tom. ili. par. i. col. 23. C.] 
No question but to make them ready 
against they understood it; and as 
schoolmasters make their scholars 
con their grammar rules by heart, 
that they may be ready for their use, 
when they better understand them. 


and combined effect.—S. Augustine on the Tradition of the Church. 93 


men offer to prove the Scripture to be the word of God, as by Szcttoy 
a divine and infallible warrant. And, it seems, no one of ane 
these doth it alone. (1.) The tradition of the present Church 
is too weak, because that is not absolutely divine. (2.) The 
light, which is in Scripture itself, is not bright enough; it 
cannot bear sufficient witness to itself. (3.) The testimony 
of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily is 
not so much as considerable in this question; which is not, 
how, or by what means, we believe, but how the Scripture 
may be proposed as a credible object, fit for belief. (4.) And 
for reason, no man expects that that should prove it: it 
doth service enough, if it enable us to disprove that which 
misguided men conceive against it. If none of these, then, 
be an absolute and sufficient means to prove it, either we 
must find out another, or see what can be more wrought 
out of these. And to all this again, A. C. says nothing. 
XX.—For the tradition of the Church, then, certain it is, 
we must distinguish the Church, before we can judge right 
of the validity of the tradition. For if the speech be of the 
prime Christian Church, the Apostles, disciples, and such as 
had immediate revelation from heaven; no question, but 
the voice and tradition of this Church is divine, not aliquo 
modo, “in a sort,” but simply; and the word of God from 
them is of like validity, written or delivered. And against 
this tradition, of which kind this, That the books of Scrip- 
ture are the word of God, is the most general and uniform, 
the Church of England never excepted. And when S. 
Augustine" said, “I would not believe the Gospel, unless the 
authority of the Catholic Church moved me,” which place 
you urged at the Conference, though you are now content to 
slide by it, some of your own will not endure it should be 
understood, save of the Church in the time of the Apostles" 


4 [Evangelium mihi fortasse lectu- [apud Goldast. Monarch. S. Rom. 
rus es, et inde Manichei personam Imp. tom. ii. p. 402. ed. Francof. 
tentabis asserere. Si ergo invenires 1614.] Intelligitur solum de Hecle- 
aliquem, qui Evangelio nondum sia que fuit tempore Apostolorum. 
credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi, Non —[Ockam’s words are: Aliquando 
credo ἢ Ego vero Evangelio non veronomen Ecclesiz non solum totam 
crederem, nisi me Catholicee Eccle- congregationem catholicorum viven- 
siz commoverit auctoritas—S. Au- tium, sed etiam fideles mortuos com- 
gustin. contra Epistolam [Manichei, prehendit. Et isto modoultimo..... 
quam vocant] Fundjamenti,] cap. vy. accipit nomen Ecclesiz Augustin. 
[Op., tom. vill. col. 153, 154. G. A.] cum asserit, quod Non crederet Evan- 

τ Ockam. Dialog. part. 1. cap. 4.  gelium, &c. Ista enim Ecclesia scrip- 


94. 


The testimony of the present Church is of weight 


Conrerence Only ; and some,*® of the Church in general, not excluding 


WITH 
FIsHen. 


after ages. 


tores Evangelii et omnes Apostolos 
comprehendit ; sicut probatum est. 
Quare ex auctoritate Augustini sane 
intellecta inferri non potest, quod 
magis sit credendum summo pontifici, 
canonum conditori, quam evangelio. 
....Conceditur tamen, quod magis 
eredendum est Scclesiw, que est 
multitudo catholicorum omnium, qui 
fuerunt a tempcribus Prophetarum et 
Apostolorum usque modo, quam evan- 
gelio: non quia de evangelio sit 
aliqualiter dubitandum, sed quia 
totum majus est sua parte.|—[T. C. 
(t.e. Thorold the Jesuit,) in his 
reply to the present work, published 
under the title: “ Labyrinthus Cantua- 
riensis; or Dr. Laud’s Labyrinth, 
Paris, 1658.” p. 78.; complains of 
Laud for saying “some,” and quoting 
only Ockam. Stillingfleet in his 
reply to T. C. “ A rational account of 
the grounds of the Protestant religion: 
being a vindication of the Lord 
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Relation 
of a Conference, from the pretended 
answer by Τὶ. C.,” parti. ch. 6. sect. 19. 
Works, ‘vol. iv." p- 191. ed: L709: 
adds the following passage from 
Gerson: “ Et hic aperitur modus in- 
telligendi illud Augustini, Evangelio 
non crederem, &c. Ibidem enim 
Eeclesiam sumit pro primitiva con- 
gregatione fidelium eorum, qui 
Christum viderunt, audierunt, et sui 
testes extiterunt.—Joh. Gerson. Lect. 
ii. de vita spirituali, ad coroll. 7.” 
(Op., tom. iii. col. 24. C. ed. Dupin. 
Antwerp. 1706.) And with respect 
to the passage from Ockam, in 
which, as Thorold rightly remarks, 
(p. 79.) “having perused it very dili- 
gently, there are neither those words 
cited (by Laud), nor anything like 
them,” Stillingfeet (ibid.) answers 
satisfactorily that, “In Durandus we 
have those very words, which his 
Lordship by a lapse of memory attri- 
butes to Ockam ; for Durandus plainly 
says: Hoe autem quod dictum est de 
approbationeScripturee per Ecelesiam, 
intelligitur solum de Ecclesia que 
fuit tempore Apostolorum, qui fuerunt 
repleti Spiritu Sancto, et nihilominus 
viderunt miracula Christi, et audie- 
runt Ejus doctrinam, et ob hoe 
fuerunt convenientes testes omnium 
que Christus fecit aut docuit, ut per 
eorum testimonia Scriptura, conti- 
nens facta et dicta Christi, approbare- 


But sure to include Christ and His Apostles. 


tur.—Durand. lib. iii. Distinct. xxiv. 
Quest. i. Sect. 9.” (fol. cexe. col. 3. 
ed. Paris. 1508.) And to the ob- 
jection urged by Thorold, that the 
passage from Ockam “doth speak, 
not of the Apostolic Church only, 
but of the Church in all ages, com- 
prehending the Apostles and HEvan- 
gelists in it,’ Stillingfleet (ibid. 
p- 192.) answers, “ What advantage 
this is to your cause I cannot ima- 
fesueKe age For they who speak of 
the Church in that comprehensive 
sense, do only suppose the infalli- 
bility to have been in the primitive 
Apostolical Church, but the  suc- 
cessive Church to be only the channel 
of conveyance of that testimony down 
to us; and so they say no more than 
we do. Thus Driedo expounds that 
place of Augustine: Augustinus cum 
dicit, Ego Evangeiio non crederem, 
&e., intelligit de Ecclesia Catholica, 
que fuit ab initio Christiane fidei, 
secundum seriem successionis Epis- 
coporum crescens, ad heee usque tem- 
pora, quee sane Ecclesia complectitur 
collegium Apostolorum. Driedo, (de 
Eccl. Script. et Dogmatib.) tom. i. 
lib. iv. cap. 4.” (De dogmat. var. et 
apoeryph. p. 564. ed. Lovan. 1533.)] 

8 [Gabrielis] Biel, [sacree theoso- 
phize licentiati nostre tempestatis 
profundissimi, sacri] canonis missz 
[tam mystica quam litteralis expositio, 
&c.] Lect. xxii. [fol. xxx. ed. Johan. 
Cleyn. Lugd. 1514. Accipitur etiam 
adhue Ecclesia pro congregatione non 
tantum omnium fidelium actu exis- 
tentium, sed omnium qui fuerunt] a 
tempore Christi et Apostolorum 
[usque nune sibi succedentium : et 
distinguitur a Synagoga Moysi. Et 
sic accipit beatus Augustinus in Epis- 
tola fundamenti, dicens, Evangelio 
non crederem nisi Ecclesiz auctoritas 
me compelleret.—In this lecture on 
the words of the Canon, “In primis 
que tibi offerimus pro tota tua 
Ecclesia sancta,’ Biel is explaining 
the various acceptations of the term 
Ecclesia, and he argues that as the 
Evangelist is part of the Church, and 
the whole greater than a part, so 
the authority of the Church is greater 
than that of the Evangelist.|—And so 
doth 8. Augustine take Heclesia, [in 
his treatise] contra [Epistol.] Fundam. 
[Ὁ] supra. ] 


for unbelievers, and those weak and unstable in the Faiti. 95 


SEcTION 
XVI. 


And the certainty is there, abundance of certainty in itself ; 
but how far that is evident to us, shall after appear. 
XXI.—But this will not serve your turn. The tradition of 
the present Church must be as infallible as that of the primi- 
tive. But the contrary to this is proved before,' because this 
voice of the present Church is not simply divine. To what 
end, then, serves any tradition of the present Church? To 
what? Why, toavery good end. For, first, it serves by a 
full consent to work upon the minds of unbelievers, to move 
them to read and to consider the Scripture, which (they 
hear by so many wise, learned, and devout men) is of no 
meaner esteem than the word of God. And, secondly, it 
serves among novices, weaklings, and doubters in the faith, 
to instruct and confirm them, till they may acquaimt them- 
selves with, and understand, the Scripture, which the Church 
delivers as the word of God. And thus, again, some of your 
own understand the fore-cited place of S. Augustine, “I 
would not believe the Gospel,” &c. For he speaks it either 
of novices, or doubters in the faith, or else of such as were 
in part infidels." You, at the Conference, though you omit it 
here, would needs have it, that S. Augustine spake even of 
the faithful ;* which I cannot yet think: for he speaks to the 


Ὁ [Ubi sup.] sect. xvi. no. 6. [p. 77.] 

ἃ (Qua ex re intelligitur quid sibi 
voluerit Augustinus cum ait, Evan- 
gelio non crederem, &c. ... Videlicet 
negotium Augustini erat cum Mani- 
cheis, qui absque controversia suo 
cuidam evangelio credi volebant, et 
Manichzorum fidem adstruere. Rogat 
igitur August. ecquid facturi sint, si 
in hominem incidant, qui ne Hvangelio 
quidem credat; quove genere persua- 
sionis sint eum in suam sententiam 
adducturi. Certe se aflirmat non 
aliter potuisse adduci ut evangelium 
amplecteretur, quam ecclesiz aucto- 
ritate victum. Non itaque docet fun- 
datam esse evangelii fidem in ecclesize 
auctoritate, verum simpliciter nullam 
esse certam viam qua] sive infideles, 
Sive in fide novitii, [ad suos libros ingre- 
diantur, nisi ecclesize catholicee unum 
eundemque consensum. — Melch.] 
Canus, de loc. Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. 
[pp. 59, 60.]—| Probatio enim omnis a 
notioribus procedit.] Neganti [ergo 
simpliciter,] aut mnescienti omnino 
[totam] Scripturam, [ex Scriptura 
nihil probatur. Utrobique tamen ec- 


clesiz auctoritas succurrit, quee tum 
dubitanti de una parte facile persua- 
det, ut qua ratione ceteras admisit, 
nimirum propter auctoritatem eccle- 
siz, eadem quoque ratione et illam 
partem admittere non dubitet; tum 
etiam totam Scripturam vel neganti 
vel nescienti sua quoque auctoritate 
persuadet, ut qua ratione fidem Christi 
accepit, nimirum ex predicatione 
ecclesiz, eadem quoque ratione et 
scripturas credat, quas commendat ec- 
clesia.|—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. 
[Controy.] iv. [De potestate ecclesize 
in se,] Queest. i. art. 3. Op., tom. i. 
p. 736.] 

x [Postremo hoe tribuit ecclesize 
Augustinus, (inquit Stapletonus,) in 
omnibus locis prius allegatis, ut ca- 
nonem Scripture consignet fidelibus : 
Ergo loquitur de se fideli ac catholico. 
Respondeo: Primo, hoe pugnare cum 
ipso Augustino, ut dicat se jam fidelem 
ac catholicum non ecrediturum eyan- 
gelio nisi ob ecclesiz tantum auctori- 
tatem.... Tertio,] Quid si fateamur 
fideles etiam ecclesize auctoritate 
commoveri, ut Seripturas recipiant? 


96 


CoNFERENOE 
WITH 
FIsHer. 


Tradition introduces us to the higher evidence of Scripture itself. 


Manichees, and they had a great part of the infidel in them.’ 
And the words immediately before these are, “If thou 
shouldst find one gui Evangelio nondum credit, which did 
not yet believe the Gospel, what wouldst thou do to make 
him believe? Ego vero non, Truly I would not,’ &c. 
So to these two ends it serves, and there need be no question 
between us. But, then, every thing that is the first inducer 
to believe, is not by and by either the principal motive or 
the chief and last object of belief, upon which a man may 
rest his faith. Unless we shall be of Jacobus Almain’s 
opinion, that we are per prius et magis, “first and more 
bound,” to believe the Church than the Gospel.’ Which your 
own learned men, as you may see by Mel[chior] Canus,* 
reject as extreme foul; and so indeed it is. The first know- 
ledge, then, after the guid nominis is known by grammar, 
that helps to open a man’s understanding, and prepares him 


Non tamen inde sequitur eos hoe 
modo penitus persuaderi, aut nulla 
alia fortioreque ratione induci. Quis 
autem Christianus est, quem Heclesia 
Christi, commendans  scripturam 
Christi, non commoyeat? [Aliud au- 
tem est commoveri, aliud persuaderi 1] 
—Whitaker. Disputat. de Sacra Scrip- 
tura, Controyv. 1. Queest. iii. cap. 8. 
ubi citat locum hune S. Augustini, 
[56. in Hpist. contra Fundam, ubi sup. 
p. 93. note 1] [Op., tom.i. p. 325. 
ed. Aurel, Allobrog. et Genev. 1610. 
—Cf. his reply to Stapleton, &e. Op., 
tom. ii. p. 310. et seq. ] 

Y Quibus [ergo] obtemperavi dicen- 
tibus, Credite Evangelio, {cur eis non 
obtemperem dicentibus mihi, Noli 
eredere Manicheis ?—S. Augustin. ] 
ibid. [Op., tom. viii col. 154. A.] 
Therefore he [S. Augustine] speaks of 
himself, when he did not believe. 

 Certum est quod tenemur credere 
omnibus contentis in sacro canone: 
quia ecclesia credit ex ea ratione 
solum. Ergo per prius et magis 
tenemur credere ecclesize, quam evan- 
gelio.—[Jac.] Almain. in III. [Sen- 
tent.] Dist. xxiv. [Queest. unic.] 
Conclus. 6. Dub. 6. And to make a 
show of proof for this, he falsifies 8. 
Augustine most notoriously, and reads 
that known place, not, Nisi me com- 
moveret, as all read it, but, compel- 
leret. Patet, quia dicit Augustinus, 
evangelio non crederem, nisi ad hoc 
me compelleret ecclesiz auctoritas : 


[Sed non tenemur credere evangeliis 
appocriphis: quia ecclesia non ex- 
hibet ea tanquam eredenda: ergo tota 
ratio quare tenemur credere evangelio, 
epistolis apostolorum et prophetarum, 
est quia presentantur ab ecclesia. 
Ergo a fortiori tenemur credere veri- 
tati ecclesiz quam evangelio. Opus- 
cula, fol. Ixxix. 5, a. Par. 15172] — 
Ibid. And so also Gerson reads it. 
[Est autem heec ecclesiz auctoritas 
tanta ut diceret Augustinus, Evangelio 
non crederem nisi me auctoritas eccle- 
size catholicee compelleret, quanquam 
vicissim dici possit, Eeclesise non ere- 
derem, si non auctoritas sacree Seriptu- 
re impelleret. Et ita diversis respec- 
tibus auctoritas utraque mutua se con- 
firmat.]—In Declarat. Veritatum quee 
credendz sunt [de necessitate salutis: 
(script. an. 1416.) Op., tom. i. col. 22. 
C. ed. Dupin. Antwerp. 1706.] But 
in a most ancient manuscript in 
Corpus Christi College in Cambridge, 
the words are, Nisi me conmoveret, We. 

Ὁ [Spiritu itaque Sancto ecelesiam 
afflatam certe credo, non ut veritatem 
auctoritatemve libris canonicis tribuat, 
sed ut doceat illos, non alios, esse eano- 
nicos. Nec si nobis aditum prabet 
ad hujusmodi sacros libros cognoseen- 
dos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est ; 
sed ultra oportet progredi, et solida 
Dei veritate niti—Melch.] Canus, de 
loc. Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. fol. 34. B. 
[p. 59.] [ubi sup.] sect. xvi. [no. 8. 
p. 77. note ».] 


Tradition guides to Belief which ultimately rests on SS. itself. 


to be able to demonstrate a truth, and make it evident, is his 
logic: but when he hath made a demonstration, he resolves 
the knowledge of his conclusion, not into his grammatical or 
logical principles, but into the immediate principles out of 
which it is deduced. So in this particular a man is probably 
led by the authority of the present Church, as by the first 
informing, inducing, persuading means, to believe the Scrip- 
ture to be the word of God; but when he hath studied, con- 
sidered, and compared this word with itself and with other 
writings, with the help of ordinary grace and a mind 
morally induced and reasonably persuaded by the voice of 
the Church, the Scripture then gives greater and higher 
reasons of credibility to itself than tradition alone could 
give. And then he that believes resolves his last and full 
assent “that Scripture is of divine authority,” ito internal 
arguments found in the letter itself, though found by the 
help and direction of tradition without, and grace within. 
And the resolution that is rightly grounded, may not endure 
to pitch and rest itself upon the helps, but upon that divine 
light which the Scripture, no question, hath in itself, but is 
not kindled till these helps come. “ Thy word is a light :””” so 
David. A light? Therefore it is as much manifestativum sui, 
as alterius, “a manifestation to itself,” as to “ other things” 
which it shows: but still, not till the candle be lighted ; 
not till there hath been a preparing instruction, what light 
it is. Children call the sun and moon candles—God’s 
candles: they see the light as well as men, but cannot dis- 
tinguish between them, till some tradition and education 
hath informed their reason. And animalis homo,’ “the 
natural man,” sees some light of moral counsel and instruc- 
tion in Scripture, as well as believers; but he takes all that 
glorious lustre for candlelight, and cannot distinguish be- 
tween the sun and twelve to the pound, till tradition of the 
Church, and God’s grace put to it, have cleared his under- 
standing. So tradition of the present Church is the first 

> [Repudiatisigitur...iisqui]sane-  veritati?] Quid lucem Scripturarum 
tarum Scripturarum lumen, [et spiri- vanis umbris [obnubilare conamini 1] 
talis populi gratiam, quod Novum - 5, Augustin. lib. i. de moribus 
Testamentum vocatur, habere nolue- Eccl. Cathol. [et Manichxor.] cap. 35. 
runt.]—S. Augustin. lib.de Vera Reli- [Op., tom. i. col. 715. C.] 
gione, cap. vii. [Op., tom. i.col. 752.D.] © [Ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος.) 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
—(Quid obstrepitis pertinacia tantee 

VOL. II.— LAUD. H 


97 


SEcTIow 
XVI. 


98 Objections answered : (1.) We too allow Authority of present Church. 


Coyrerrnce Moral motive to belief. But the belief itself, That the 


WITH 
Fisuer. 





Scripture is the word of God, rests upon the Scripture,* 
when a man finds it to answer, and exceed all that which 
the Church gave in testimony, as will after appear. And as 
in the voice of the primitive and apostolical Church, there 
was simply divine authority, delivermg the Scripture as 
God’s word ;° so, after tradition of the present Church hath 
taught and informed the soul, the voice of God is plainly 
heard in Scripture itself. And then here is double authority, 
and both divine, that confirms Scripture to be the word of 
God :—Tradition of the Apostles delivering it ; and, The 
internal worth and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a 
soul prepared by the present Church’s tradition and God’s 
grace. 

XXII.—The difficulties which are pretended against this 
are not many, and they will easily vanish. For, first, you pre- 
tend we go to private revelations for ight to know Scripture. 
No, we do not; you see it is excluded out of the very state 
of the question: and we go to the tradition of the present 
Church, and by it, as well as you. Here we differ: we use 
the tradition of the present Church as the first motive, not 


as the last resolution, of our faith. 


We resolve only into 


prime tradition Apostolical and Scripture itself. 


4 Origen, περὶ ἀρχῶν, lib. iv. cap. 1. 
went this way, yet was he a great deal 
nearer the prime addition than we are. 
For being to prove that the Scriptures 
were inspired from God, he saith, 
{Igitur quam poterimus breviter] de 
hoe assignabimus ex ipsis divinis 
Scripturis, quae nos competenter move- 
rint.—| Ruffino interpret. φέρε καὶ περὶ 
τούτων ὀλίγα ws ἐν ἐπιτομῇ διαλάβωμεν, 
τὰ κινοῦντα ἡμᾶς, ὡς περὶ θείων γραμμά- 
των, εἰς τοῦτο TapaTibeuevor.— Origen. 
Op., tom. i. p. 156. ed. Benedict. ] 

ἐς Principaliter tamen (etiam et 
hic) credimus propter Deum, non 
Apostolos: [inquit] Henr. a Gand. 
{His words are :—Et licet per Pro- 
phetas, et Apostolos intermedios ista 
doctrina tradita sit, et auctoritate 
eorum diyina auctoritas nobis in eis 
credita sit, tamen propter Christi 
auctoritatem, immo Dei in Christo, 
ei ipsi principaliter credendum est, 
quoniam ita est in agentibus per 
ordinem ad aliquem effectum deter- 
minatum, quod nullum mediorum 


dicitur esse agens per se, nisi quia 
agit in virtute primi agentis, aliter 
enim judicaretur agens per accidens. | 
— Henr. a Gand. Summ. par. i. 
Art. ix. Quest. 3. [§ 13. p. 180.— 
Ideo absolute dicendum, quod huic 
scientize principaliter credendum est 
propter Dei auctoritatem, et nulli alii 
nisi in quantum ex yirtute Dei reful- 
gente circa ipsum constet eum media- 
torem Dei in hoe fuisse.—ibid. ὃ 14.] 
Now, if where the Apostles themselves 
spake, wltimata resolutio fidei was 
in Deum, not in ipsos per se, much 
more shall it be a Dewm than in 
presentem ecclesiam: and into the 
writings of the Apostles, than into the 
words of their successors made up into 
a tradition. 

£ Calvin. Instit. lib. i. cap. 7. § 2. 
Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum scrip- 
tis, et Apostolorum preedicatione initio 
fundata fuit, ubicunque reperietur ea 
doctrina, &e.—[Op., tom, yill. p.11. 
ed. Amstelod. 1667. 


(2.) Divine Authority attainable through Evidences not Divine. 


XXIII.—Secondly, you pretend we do not, nor cannot, 
know the prime Apostolical tradition, but by the tradition of 
the present Church; and that, therefore, if the tradition of 
the present Church be not God’s unwritten word, and divine, 
we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a divine 
authority. Well: suppose I could not know the prime tra- 
dition to be divine, but by the present Church, yet it doth 
not follow that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the 
word of God by a divine authority, because divine tradition 
is not the sole and only means to prove it. For suppose 
1 had not, nor could have, full assurance of Apostolical tra- 
dition divine; yet the moral persuasion, reason, and force of 
the present Church is ground enough to move any reasonable 
man that it is fit he should receive the Scripture, and esteem 
very reverently and highly of it. And this once done, the 
Seripture hath then in and home arguments enough to put 
a soul, that hath but ordinary grace, out of doubt, that Scrip- 
ture is the word of God, infallible and divine. 

XXIV.—Thirdly, you pretend that we make the Scripture 
absolutely and fully to be known, lumine suo, by the light 
and testimony which it hath in, and gives to, itself. Against 
this you give reason for yourselves, and proof from us. 
Your reason is, “If there be sufficient light in Scripture to 
show itself, then every man, that can and doth but read it, 
may know it presently to be the divine word of God, which 
we see by daily experience men neither do, nor can.” First, 
it is not absolutely nor universally true, There is sufficient 
light ; therefore every man may see it. Blind men are men, 
and cannot see it; and “sensual men,’ in the Apostle’s 
judgment, are such. Nor may we deny and put out this light 
as insufficient, because blind eyes cannot, and perverse eyes 
will not, see it, no more than we may deny meat to be 


& And where Hooker uses this very 
argument, as he doth, book iii. ch. 8, 
his words are not, ‘If there be sufti- 
cient light,” but, “If that light be 
evident.” [Hooker's words are : “ Scrip- 
ture teacheth all supernatural revealed 
truth, without the knowledge whereof 
salvation cannot be attained. The 
main principle whereupon our belief 
of all things therein contained depend- 
eth, is, that the Scriptures are the 
oracles of God himself, This in itself 


we cannot say is evident. For there 
are men that hear it would acknow- 
ledge it in heart, as they do when they 
hear that every whole is more than 
every part of that whole, because this 
in itself is evident. The others we 
know that all do not acknowledge 
when they hear it.”—Eec]. Polit. Book 
iii. ch. viii. 12. Works, vol.i. p. 474. 
ed. Keble. ] 
h [ψυχικὸς, 1 Cor. ii. 14.] 


H 2 


99 


SECTION 
XVI. 


1Cor. ii. 14. 


100 


(3.) The light of SS. gives Faith, not Demonstrative Knowledge. 


Conrerence sufficient for nourishment, though men that are heart-sick 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


Heb. xi. 1. 


cannot eat it. 
light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight 
must yield to it ; such light as is found in prime principles, 
“ Every whole is greater than a part of the same,” and this, 
«“ The same thing cannot be, and not be, at the same time, 
and in the same respect.” These carry a natural light with 
them, and evident; for the terms are no sooner understood 
than the principles themselves are fully known, to the con- 
vincing of man’s understanding ; and so they are the begin- 
ning of knowledge, which, where it is perfect, dwells in full 
light: but such a full light we do neither say is, nor require 
to be, in Scripture; and if any particular man do, let him 
answer for himself. The question is only of such a light in 
Scripture as is of force to breed faith, that it is the word of 
God; not to make a perfect knowledge. Now faith, of 
whatsoever it is, this or other principle, is an evidence,' as 
well as knowledge; and the belief is firmer than any know- 
ledge can be, because it rests upon divine authority which 
cannot deceive; whereas knowledge, or at least he that 
thinks he knows, is not ever certain in deductions from 
principles. But the evidence is not so clear;* for it is of 
“things not scen,”! in regard of the object; and in regard of 
the subject that sees, it is in enigmate™ “in a glass, or dark 
speaking.” Now, God doth not require a full demonstrative 
knowledge in us, that the Scripture is His word, and therefore 
in His providence hath kindled in it no light for that; but 
He requires our faith of it, and such a certain demonstration 
as may fit that. And for that He hath left sufficient light 
in Scripture to reason and grace meeting, where the soul is 
morally prepared by the tradition of the Church, unless you 
be of Bellarmine’s opinion, “ That to believe there are any 
divine Scriptures is not omnino necessary to salvation.” " 


Next, we do not say that there is such a full 


i ἔλεγχος. Heb. xi. 1. 

k [Vide supra,]§ 16. No. 13. [p. 87.] 

“ΠΊΕ ΓΝ ΡΣ 

m [ἐν αἰνίγματι.} 1 Cor. xiii.12. And 
A.C. confesses, p. 52, that this very 
thing in question may be known in- 
fallibly,when it is known butobscurely. 
Et Scotus in III. (Sentent.]| Dist. xxiii. 
Quest. i. fol. 41. B. [Et hoe modo 
dicendo, fides non habet certitudinem 


ex objecto,sed ex yeracitate testis, sci- 
licet Dei: et] hoe modo facile est vi- 
dere quomodo fides est cum senigmate 
et obscuritate : quia habens fidem non 
credit articulum esse verum ex eyiden- 
tia objecti, sed propter hoc, quod as- 
sentit veracitati infundentis habitum, 
et in hoe revelantis credibilia.—[Op., 
tom. vii. p. 462.] 

 Bellarmin, lib. iii. de Ecclesia, 


Hooker’s Authority unfairly alleged by Romanists. 


XXV.—The authority which you pretend against this, is 
out of Hooker:° “Of things necessary, the very chiefest 
is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holy ; which 
point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to 


teach.” 


cap. 14. [Op., tom. ii. col. 149. B.] 
Credere ullas esse divinas Scripturas, 
non est omnino necessarium ad salu- 
tem. [Bellarmine’s words are :— 
Multa sunt de fide, que non sunt 
absolute necessaria ad salutem. Sane 
eredere historias 'estamenti Veteris, 
vel Evangelia Marci et Luce esse 
canonica scripta, imo ullas_ esse 
divinas Scripturas, non est omnino 
necessarium ad salutem: nam sine 
hac fide multi salvati sunt, antequam 
Scripture scriberentur, et postea 
tempore Novi Testamenti multe 
barbaree nationes.| I will not break 
my discourse to rifle this speech of 
Bellarmine: it is bad enough in the 
best sense that favour itself can give 
it. For if he mean by omnino, that 
it is not altogether or simply ne- 
cessary to believe there is divine 
Scripture, and a written word of 
God ; that is false: that being 
granted, which is among all Chris- 
tians, that there is a Scripture: and 
God would never have given a super- 
natural unnecessary thing. And if he 
means by omnino, that it is not in 
any wise necessary, then it is sensibly 
false. For the greatest upholders of 
tradition that ever were, made the 
Scripture very necessary in all the 
ages of the Church: so it was neces- 
sary, because it was given; and given, 
because God thought it necessary. 
Besides, upon Roman grounds, this I 
think will follow: That which the tra- 
dition of the present Church delivers, 
as necessary to believe, is omnino ne- 
cessary to salvation: But that there 
are divine Scriptures, the tradition of 
the present Church delivers, as neces- 
sary to believe: Therefore, to believe 
there are divine Scriptures, is omnino 
(be the sense of the word what it can) 
necessary to salvation. So Bellarmine 
is herein foul and unable to stand 
upon his own ground. And he is the 
more, partly, because he avouches this 
proposition for truth after the New 
Testament written; and, partly, be- 
cause he might have seen the state of 
this proposition carefully examined 
by Gandavo, and distinguished by 
times.--[Henr. a Gand.] Summ. par. 1. 


Of this Brereley,? the storehouse for all priests 


Art. viii. Quest. 4. in fine. [The 
whole Quest. is on this point.— 
(§ 7. in fin.) Unde nee fides sufficit 
in nobis singula credenda monstrare, 
sed oportet ea ex litera respicere, vel 
a doctore audire. Secundum quod 
scimus centurionem Cornelium, quam- 
vis exauditas orationes ejus, et elee- 
mosynas respectas ei Angelus nun- 


ciavit, Petrus tamen traditum im- 
buendum, per quem non solum 
sacramenta susciperet, sed etiam 


quid credendum, quid sperandum, 
quid diligendum esset audiret, ut 
dicit Augustinus, et tamen per fidem 
interius a Deo prius illustratus fuisse 
creditur.—Henr. a Gand. Art. viii. 
Quest. 4. § 7. in fin. p. 166.—Ad 
tertium, quod erat conscribenda in 
usum hominum, dicendum quod ve- 
rum est, sed pro tempore cum opus 
erat, ut dictum est.—ibid. § 9. p. 166. 
—Ad primum in oppositum, quod 
labilis est memoria, et ideo indigemus 
Scripture, dicendum, quod verum est, 
sed hoc non habet nisi ex inundantia 
peccatorum. Unde nec in statu in- 
nocentiz, nec statim post peccatum 
hoe contingebat, et ideo nec illis 
temporibus erat heec scientia conscri- 
benda, sed aliz ut dictum est.—ibid. 
§ 10. p. 166.] 

° Book i. ch. xiv. [Sect i. Heel. Polit. 
Works, vol. i. p. 335. ed. Keble. His 
words are: “If only those things be 
necessary, as surely none else are, 
without the knowledge and practice 
whereof it is not the will and pleasure 
of God to make any ordinary grant of 
salvation ; it may be notwithstanding, 
and oftentimes hath been, demanded, 
how the books of Holy Scripture con- 
tain in them all necessary things, 
when of things necessary, the very 
chiefest,” &c.| 

P Protestants’ Apology [for the Ro- 
man Church,] Tractate i. Sect. 10. 
No. iii. [pp. 254, 255—By John 
Brereley, Priest: Permissu Superio- 
rum. An. mpcyim.—This work was 
also translated into Latin: Apologia 
Protestantium pro Romana Ecclesia, 
&e. per Guilielmum Raynerium, 
Latine versa.—Lut. Par. 1615.] 


101 


SECTION 
XVI. 


102 


That other Evidence, besides that of Scripture, is needful : 


Conrerence that will be idle, and yet seem well read, tells us, that 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


“Hooker gives a very sensible demonstration: ‘It is not 
the word of God, which doth, or possibly can, assure us, 
that we do well to think it is His word ; for if any one book 
of Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still that Serip- 
ture, which giveth credit to the rest, would require another 
[Scripture] to give credit unto it : neither could we ever come 
unto any pause, to rest our assurance this way ; so that unless, 
beside Scripture, there were something which might assure, 
&e’’4 And “this he acknowledgeth”? (saith Brereley) 
‘is the authority of God’s Church.’” Certainly, Hooker 
gives a true and sensible demonstration; but Brereley wants 
fidelity and integrity in citing him. For in the first place, 
Hooker’s speech is, “Scripture itself cannot teach this ;” nor 
can the truth say that Scripture itself can. It must needs 
ordinarily have tradition, to prepare the mind of a man to 
receive it. And in the next place, where he speaks so 
sensibly, that Scripture cannot bear witness to itself, nor 
one part of it to another; that is grounded upon nature, 
which admits no created thing to be witness to itself; and 
is acknowledged by our Saviour: “If I bear witness to My- 
self, My witness is not true,’”’® that is, is not of force to be 
reasonably accepted for truth. But then it is more than 
manifest, that Hooker delivers his demonstration of Scrip- 
ture alone. For if Scripture hath another proof, nay many 
other proofs, to usher it and lead it in, then, no question, it 
can both prove and approve itself. His words are: “So 
that unless, beside Scripture, there be, &c.” “ Beside Serip- 
ture:” therefore he excludes not Scripture, though he call 
for another proof to lead it im, and help in assurance, 
namely, Tradition, which no man, that hath his brains about 
him, denies. In the two other places, Brereley falsifies 
shamefully ; for holding up all that Hooker says in these 
words, “This (other means to assure us besides Scripture) 
is the authority of God’s Church,” he wrinkles that worthy 


4 Book ii. ch. iv. [Sect. 2. Eccl. ch. viii. [Sect. 14. Eccl. Polit. Works, 
Polit. Works, vol. i. p. 371. ubi sup. vol. i. p. 475. vide infra, p. 1038. 
p. 82. note °.] note *.] 


® Book ii. ch. vii. [Sect. 3. Eccl. 
Polit. Works, vol. i. p. 404. vide 
infra, p. 103. note *.] and Book iii. 


5. §. Joh. v.31.—He speaks of Him- 
self as man. 


That Scripture itself is the ultimate Ground of Faith. 


author desperately, and shrinks up his meaning. For in 
the former place abused by Brercley, no man can set a better 
state of the question between Scripture and tradition, than 
Hooker doth. His words are these: “ The Scripture is the 
ground of our belief; the authority of man (that is the name 
he gives to tradition) is the key which openeth the door of 
entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture.”' I ask now, 
when a man is entered, and hath viewed a house, and upon 
viewing likes it, and upon liking resolves unchangeably to 
dwell there; doth he set up his resolution upon the key that 
let him in? No sure! but upon the goodness and com- 
modiousness which he sees in the house. And this is all 
the difference, that I know, between us in this point; in 
which, do you grant, as you ought to do, that we resolve our 
faith into Scripture as the ground; and we will never deny 
that tradition is the key that lets usin. In the latter place, 
Hooker is as plain, as constant to himself and truth. His 
words are: “The first outward motive, leading men so to 
esteem of the Scripture, is the authority of God’s Church, 
&e. But afterwards, the more we bestow our labour in 
reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find 
that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion con- 
cerning it; so that the former inducement prevailing some- 
what with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the 
very thing hath ministered farther reason.”" Here then 
again, in his judgment, tradition is the first inducement ; 
but the farther reason and ground is the Scripture. And 
resolution of faith ever settles upon the farthest reason it 
can, not upon the first inducement. So that the state of 
this question is firm, and yet plain enough, to him that will 
not shut his eyes. 

XXVI.—Now here, after a long silence, A. C. thrusts 


t Book ii. ch. vii. [Sect. 3. Eccl. 
Polit. Works, vol.i. p.404. Hooker’s 
words in full are: “For whatsoever 


know that the first outward motive, 
leading men so to esteem of the 
Scripture, is the authority of God’s 


we believe concerning salvation by 
Christ, although the Scripture be 
therein the ground of our belief; 
yet the authority of man is, if we 
mark it, the key, &c.”] 

« Book iii. ch. viii. (Sect. 14. Heel. 
Polit. Works, vol.i. p. 475. Hooker’s 
words are: ‘“ And by experience we all 


Church. For when we know the 
whole Church of God hath that 
opinion of the Scripture, we judge it, 
even at the first, an impudent thing 
for any man, bred and brought up in 
the Church, to be of a contrary mind 
an cause. Afterwards, the more, 
&e.” 


103 


SECTION 
ΧΥΙ. 


ANIC pao 2: 


104 


Assistance promised to the Church, still less to the Roman Clergy, 


Coyrerence himself in again, and tells me, “ That if I would consider 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


1 [much 
NESS πος ene 
carent 
Editt. 1673 
and 1686.] 


A.C. p.52. 


A Cr pods 


the tradition of the Church, not only as it is the tradition of 
a company of fallible men, in which sense the authority of 
it, as himself confesses, is but human and fallible, &c.; but, 
as the tradition of a company of men, assisted by Christ 
and His Holy Spririt; in that sense I might easily find it 
more than an introduction, indeed as much as would amount 
to an infallible motive.’ Well, I have considered the tradi- 
tion of the present Church both these ways ; and I find 
that A. C. confesses, that, in the first sense, the tradition of 
the Church is mere human authority, and no more: and 
therefore, in this sense, it may serve for an introduction to 
this belief, but no more. And in the second sense, “as it is 
not the tradition of a company of men only, but of men 
assisted by Christ and His Spirit ;” in this second sense, I 
cannot find that the tradition of the present Church is of 
divine and infallible authority, till A. C. can prove that this 
company of men, (the Roman prelates and their clergy he 
means,) are so fully, so clearly, so permanently assisted by 
Christ and His Spirit, as may reach to infallibility, much less! 
to a divine infallibility, in this or any other principle which 
they teach. For every assistance of Christ and the blessed 
Spirit, is not enough to make the authority of any company 
of men divine and infallible; but such and so great an 
assistance only, as is purposely given to that effect. Such 
an assistance, the Prophets under the Old Testament, and 
the Apostles under the New, had; but neither the high- 
priest with his clergy in the Old, nor any company of 
prelates or priests in the New, since the Apostles, ever had 
it. And therefore, though at the entreaty of A. C. I have 
“considered” this very well, yet I cannot, no not in this 
assisted sense, think the tradition of the present Church 
divine and infallible, or such company of men to be worthy 
of divine and infallible credit, and sufficient to breed in us 
divine and infallible faith. Which I am sorry A. C. should 
affirm so boldly as he doth. What! That company of men, 
the Roman bishop and his clergy, of divine and infallible 
credit, and sufficient to breed in us divine and infallible 
faith! Good God! Whither will these men go? Surely 
they are “wise in their generation,” but that makes them 


does not amount to a Divine Infallibility. 105 
never a whit the more “the children of light.” And could  Sxzcrtox 
XVI. 


they put this home upon the world, as they are gone far 
in it, what might they not effect? How might they, and Luke xvi. 
would they, then “lord” it over the faith of Christendom, 
contrary to 8. Peter’s rule, whose successors certainly in this 1 Pet. v. 3. 
they are not! But I pray, if this company of men be in- 
fallibly assisted, whence is it that this very company have 
erred so dangerously as they have, not only in some other 
things, but even in this particular, by equalling the tradition 
of the present Church to the written word of God? Which 
is a doctrine unknown to the primitive Church,* and which 
frets upon the very foundation itself, by jostling with it. 
So belike, he that hath but half an indifferent eye, may see 
this assisted company have erred; and yet we must wink in 
obedience, and think them infallible. 

XXVII.—But, A. C. would have me consider again, That A.C. p. 52. 


x §. Basil goes as far for traditions 
as any. For he says: Parem vim 
habent ad pietatem.—Lib. de Spi- 
ritu Sancto, cap. xxvii. [Op., tom. iii. 
p. 54. 1). ed. Benedict. Τῶν ἐν τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ πεφυλαγμένων δογμάτων καὶ 
κηρυγμάτων, τὰ μὲν ek THS ἐγγράφου 
διδασκαλίας ἔχομεν, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν 
ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδοθέντα ἡμῖν 
ἐν μυστηρίῳ παραδεξάμεθα᾽ ἅπερ ἀμφό- 
τερα τὴν αὐτὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν 
εὐσέβειαν καὶ τούτοις οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ, 
οὐκοῦν ὁστίς γε κατὰ μικρὸν γοῦν 
θεσμῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πεπείραται. 
But first, he speaks of Apostolical 
tradition, [λέξιν ἡμῖν ἐκ πατέρων εἰς 
ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσαν), not of the tradition 
of the present Church. Secondly, the 
learned take exceptions to this book 
of S. Basil, as corrupted. [ex. grat. 
“This (of Traditions) is matter of 
opinion, not of practice ; and so 
toucheth not the face of the Church. 
Exceptions have been made by Hras- 
mus, and other learned men, to this 
book (de Spiritu Sancto). We op- 
pose to it out of Basil’s treatise de 
Fide, which never was questioned till 
now, or lately by the Cardinal (Per- 
ron), these words: Haud dubio 
manifestissimum hoe  infidelitatis 
argumentum fuerit, et signum super- 
biz certissimum, si quis eorum que 
scripta sunt aliquid velit rejicere, 
aut eorum que non scripta intro- 
ducere.” (favépa ἔκπτωσις κ. τ. A. Ubi 
sup. p. 61. note 4.)] Bp. Andrewes’ 
Opuseul. cont. Perron. [7. 6. Stric- 


ture : or a briefe answer to the xviii. 
chapter of the first book of Cardinall 
Perron’s reply, written in French to 
King James’s answer, &c. London. 
1629.|p.9. Thirdly, S. Basil himself, 
Serm. de fide, [Op., tom. ii. p. 224. B. 
ubisup. p. 69. note *.] professes that he 
uses sometimes Agrapha, sed ea solum 
que non sunt aliena a pia secundum 
Scripturam sententia.—d@Adrore ἄλλαις, 
ὡς av ἡ χρεία τῶν νοσούντων κατηνάγ- 
κασε, καὶ ταύταις πολλάκις ἀγράφοις 
μὲν, ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν οὐκ ἀπεξενωμέναις τῆς 
κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν εὐσεβοῦς διανοίας. 
So he makes the Scripture their 
touchstone or trial, and therefore 
must of necessity make Scripture 
superior, inasmuch as that, which is 
able to try another, is of greater force 
and superior dignity in that use, 
than the thing tried by it. And 
Stapleton himself confesses: [Sexto 
modo] traditio [vocari potest, que 
non omnium aut temporum, aut 
locorum, in quibus Catholica viget 
religio, sed vel} recentior et posterior, 
vel particularis, [et paucorum con- 
suetudo est. Heec vero si contra 
fidem et mores nihil contineat, 
laudabiliter retineri potest, nec temere 
abroganda est...tamen] nullo modo 
cum Scriptura, vel cum traditionibus 
prius explicatis, comparanda est.— 
Stapleton. Relect. Controy. [Controv. ] 
v. [de Potest. Heel. cirea doctrin. non 
script.] Queest. vy. art. 2. [Op., tom. i. 
p. 794. C.] 


106 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FISHER. 


A.C. p. 53. 


A. C. p. 53. 


Luke x. 16. 
Matt. 
xxviii. 19, 
20. 

John xiv. 
16. 


Grounds for trusting to Existing Copies of Scripture. 


it is as easy to take the tradition of the present Church in 
the two fore-named senses, as the present Scriptures printed 
and approved by men of this age. For in the first sense, 
the very Scriptures, saith he, considered as printed and 
approved by men of this age, can be no more than of human 
credit. But in the second sense, as printed and approved 
by men assisted by God’s Spirit, for true copies of that 
which was first written, then we may give infallible credit to 
them. Well, I have considered this too; and I can take 
the printing and approving the copies of Holy Writ in these 
two senses; and I can and do make a difference between 
copies printed and approved by mere moral men, and men 
assisted by God’s Spirit: and yet for the printing only, a 
skilful and an able moral man may do better service to the 
Church than an illiterate man, though assisted in other 
things by God’s Spirit. But when I have considered all 
this, what then? The Scripture being put in writing, is a 
thing visibly existent ; and if any error be in the print, it is 
easily corrigible by former copies.’ ‘Tradition is not so 
easily observed, nor so safely kept. And howsoever, to 
come home to that which A. C. infers upon it, namely, 
That the tradition of the present Church may be accepted 
in these two senses: and if this be all that he will infer, 
(for his pen here is troubled and forsakes him, whether by 
any check of conscience or no, I know not,) I will [grant,] 
and, you see, have granted it already without more ado, with 
this caution, That every company of men, assisted by God’s 
Spirit, are not assisted to this height, to be infallible by 
divine authority. 

XX VIII.—For all this, A. C. will needs give a needless 
proof of the business, namely, That there is the promise of 
Christ’s and His Holy Spirit’s continual presence and assist- 
ance, not only to the Apostles, but to their successors also, the 
lawfully sent pastors and doctors of the Church in all ages ; 
and that this promise is no less, but rather more expressly 
to them in their preaching by word of mouth, than in writ- 


y [Vide infra.] Sect. xviii. No. 4. nullo modo vos potuisse falsare co- 
{for a passage from] S. Augustin. dices, qui jam in manibus essent 
contra Faustum, lib. xxxii. cap. 16. omnium Christianorum? Quia mox, 
[Op., tom. viii. col. 459. C. Quid ut facere ccepissetis, vetustiorum ex- 
faceretis, dicite mihi, nisi clamaretis, emplarium veritate convinceremini. ] 


Extent of the Promise of Divine Assistance to the Church. 


ing, or reading, or printing, or approving of copies of what 
was formerly written by the Apostles. And to all this I 
shall briefly say, That there is a promise of Christ’s and the 
Holy Spirit’s continual presence and assistance. I do lke- 
wise grant most freely, that this promise is, on the part of 
Christ and the Holy Ghost, most really and fully performed. 
But then this promise must not be extended further than 
it was made. It was made of continual presence and 
assistance,—that I grant; and it was made to the Apostles 
and their successors,—that I grant too: but in a different 
degree. For it was of continual and infallible assistance to 
the Apostles ; but to their successors, of continual and fitting 
assistance, but not infallible. And therefore, the lawfully 
sent pastors and doctors of the Church in all ages have had, 
and shall have, continual assistance; but by A. C.’s leave, 
not infallible, at least, not divine and infallible, either in 
writing, reading, printing, or approving copies. And I 
believe A. C. is the first that durst affirm this. I thought 
he would have kept the Pope’s prerogative entire, that he 
only might have been infallible; and not he neither, but iz 
cathedra, sat down and well advised. And “ well advised!” 
Yes, that is right. But he may be sat,” and not well ad- 
vised, even in cathedra. And now, shall we have all the 
lawfully sent pastors and doctors of that Church in all ages, 
infallible too? Here is a deal of infallibility indeed, and 


z Nam mult sunt Decretales 
heeretice, sicut dicit Ocham. Et firmi- 
ter hoe credo; sed non licet dogma- 
tizare oppositum, quoniam sunt 
determinate, nisi manifeste constet. 
[Quando enim est questio de fide 
materia deferenda est ad summum 
pontificem: non ut ferat sententiam ; 
sed ut concilium congreget et con- 
cilium indefectibiliter sententiabit. ] 
—Jac. Almain. in III. Sent. Distinct. 
Xxiv. Quest. unic. Conclus. 6. Dub. 6. 
in fine. [fol. Ixxix.] And Alphonsus a 
Castro both says and proves, Czelesti- 
num papam errasse, non ut privatam 
personam, sed ut papam. [His words 
are: Czelestinum papam etiam errasse 
circa matrimonium fidelium, quorum 
alter labitur in heresim, res est 
omnibus manifesta. Neque hic Ceeles- 
tini error talis fuit, qui soli negli- 
gentize imputari debeat, ita ut illum 


errasse dicamus velut privatam per- 
sonam, et non ut Papam, qui in 
qualibet re sacra definienda con- 
sulere debet viros doctos..... Si 
ergo nulli homini jure tenemur in 
interpretatione sacrarum  literarum 
eredere, propterea quod quilibet 
homo solus errare potest, erit neces- 
sario judicium interpretationis penes 
totam ecclesiam, penes quam jus 
fuerat discernendi Sacras Scripturas 
ab humanis.|—Lib. i. adv. Heeres. 
cap. iv. [col. 20, 21.]— And the 
Gloss confesses, Eum errare posse, 
in [Decret. ii. par. xi.) Caus. xxiv. 
Queest. i. cap. (ix.) A recta ergo, [nec 
heereticis novitatibus depravata suc- 
cubuit: Gloss. Queero....si de ipso 
Papa, qui Ecclesia dicitur.... sed 
certum est quod Papa errare possit. 
xix, de Anastas. 40. ἃ. Si Papa, &c.] 


107 


SKcTIon 
XVI. 


108 Extravagant claims of Jesuits: Arguments alleged from SS. examined. 


ConFERENCE 
WITH 
FISHER. 


Luke x. 16. 


yet error store. The truth is, the Jesuits have a month’s 
mind to this infallibility. And though A. C., out of his 
bounty, is content to extend it to all the lawfully sent 
pastors of the Church, yet to his own society questionless 
he means it chiefly: as did the apologist, to whom Casaubon 
replies [in a letter] to Fronto Duceeus. The words of the 
apologist? are: ‘Let day and night,....life and death be 
jomed together, and then there will be some hope, that 
heresy may fall upon the person of a Jesuit.” Yea marry, 
this is something indeed: now we know where infallibility 
is to be found. But for my present occasion, touching the 
lawfully sent pastors of the Church, &c. I will give no other 
confutation of it, than that M. Fisher and A. C., if they be 
two men, are lawfully sent pastors and doctors of the 
Church; at least I am sure, they will assume they are: and 
yet they are not infallible; which, I think, appears plain 
enough in some of their errors manifested by this discourse 
and elsewhere. Or, if they do hold themselves infallible, 
let them speak it out, as the apologist did. 

XXIX.—As for the three places of Scripture, which A. C. 
cites, they are of old alleged and well known in this contro- 
versy. The first is in 8. Luke x. where Christ saith, “ He that 
heareth you, heareth Me.” ‘This was absolutely true in the 
Apostles,” who kept themselves to that which was revealed 


* Nam in fide quidem Jesuitam 
errare non posse, atque adeo esse hoc 
unicum τῶν ἀδυνάτων, ceteris, que 
solent a poetis plurima commemorari, 
posthac annumerandum, si nescis, 
mi Fronto, et puto nescire, docebo te 
ab apologista doctus, hoe ipsum di- 
sertis verbis affirmante. Sic ille 
cap. 111. ejus exemplaris quod ad sere- 
nissimum Regem fuit missum, pagina 
119. Jungantur in unum, ait, dies 
cum nocte, tenebrz cum luce, calidum 
cum frigido, sanitas cum morbo, vita 
cum morte; et erit tum spes aliqua 
posse in caput Jesuitee heeresin cadere. 
| Magnum hoe, deus bone, et singulare 
Societatis vestree privilegium. |—Isa. 
Casaubon. Epist. ad Front. Duceeum, 
{dat.] Lond. [vii. Non. Jul.] 1611. 
| Isaaci Casaubon. Epist. deexx. p. 397. 
ed. Almeloveen. Roterod. 1709.—The 
“ Apologist” alluded to was Bellar- 
mine himself. See Thuan. Continuat. 
Histor. pp. 51, 52.] 

> Per quod docet quicquid per sanc- 


tos Apostolos dicit, acceptandum esse, 
quia qui illos audit, Christum audit, 
&e.—S. Cyrillus [Alexandr.], apud 
Thom. [Aquin. in] Caten. [Aurea. 
No commentary on 8. Luke is extant 
among 8. Cyril’s published works; 
but in the tenth vol. of the Classici 
Auctores, published by Cardinal 
Angelo Mai, is printed nearly the 
whole of the commentary inserted in 
the Catena Aurea. Fragments of the 
same commentary are also published 
in the ninth vol. of the Scriptores 
Veteres, by the same editor ; but it 
does not appear that the present 
passage in the original has been 
recovered. |—Et{enim] Dominus [om- - 
nium] dedit Apostolis suis potesta- 
tem Evangelii, per quos et veritatem, 
hoe est, Dei fillum cognovimus; qui- 
bus et dixit Dominus, Qui vos audit 
&c.—-S. Ireneeus, preefat. in lib. iii. 
advers. Heer. fine. [Op., p. 198. ed. 
Grabe.] 


Promise, to successors of Apostles, conditional, and not of infallible aid. 109 


by Christ: but it was to be but conditionally true in their Srcrtoy 
successors,° “ He that heareth you, heareth Me ;” that is, so Sane 
long and so far“ as you speak My words, and not your own.° 

For where the command is for preaching, the restraint is 

added. ‘ Go,” saith Christ, ‘‘ and teach all nations.” But 

you may not preach all things what you please, but “ all Mat. xxviii, 
things which I have commanded you.’ ‘The publication is os 

yours, the doctrme is Mine: and where the doctrine is not 
Mine, there your publication is beyond, or short of, your 
commission. The second place_is in 8. Matthew xxvii. 
There Christ says again, “Iam with you always, unto the 
end of the world.” Yes, most certain it is, present by His 
spirit: for else in bodily presence He continued not with 
His Apostles, but during His abode on earth. And this pro- 


Mat. xxviii. 
19, 20. 


mise of His spiritual presence was to their successors : 
why “to the end of the world?” 


could not, live so long. 


else, 
The Apostles did not, 


But then to the successors the pro- 
mise goes no further than “I am with you always ;” 


which 


reaches to continual assistance, but not to divine and infal- 


lible.f 


[¢ Nee hee jacto, sed dolens pro- 
fero, cum te judicem Dei constituas 
et Christi, qui] dicit ad Apostolos, ac 
per hoc ad omnes preepositos, qui 
Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succe- 
dunt, Qui audit vos, &e.—S. Cyprian. 
lib. iv. Epist. 9. [Epist. lxix. ad 
Florentium Pupianum, Op., p. 122. 
ed. Benedict.] But 5. Cyprian doth 
not say, that this speech of our 
Saviour’s was eequaliter dictum, alike 
and equally spoken and promised 
to the Apostles and the succeeding 
bishops. And I believe A. C. will not 
dare to say in plain and express terms, 
that this speech, “ He that heareth 
you, heareth Me,” doth as amply 
belong to every Roman priest as to S. 
Peter and the Apostles. No, a great 
deal of difference will become them 
well. 

4 « Be ye followers of me, even as I 
am of Christ.”—-1 Cor. ii. 1. and 1 
Thess. i. 6. 

e And so venerable Beda expressly, 
both for hearing the word, and for 
contemningit. ‘‘ For neither of these,” 
saith he, “belong only to them which 
saw our Saviour in the flesh, but to all 
hodie quoque: but with this limitation, 
if they hear or despise Hvangelvi verba, 


Or, if he think me mistaken, let him shew me any 


not the preachers’ own.’—Beda in 8. 
Lue. x. 15, 16. fapud Caten. Auream. 
His words are : Et ne quis putaret hane 
increpationem, illis tantummodo civi- 
tatibus vel personis convenire, quze Do- 
minum in carne videntes spernebant, et 
non omnibus qui hodie quoque Evan- 
gelii verba despiciunt, consequenter 
adjunxit, dicens, Qui vos audit, &c.... 
Ut scilicet in audiendo quisque vel 
spernendo Eyangelii preedicationem, 
non viles quasque personas, sed Do- 
minum Salvatorem, immo ipsum Pa- 
trem, spernere, &c,—Op., tom. v. col. 
330. ed. Colon. 1612. ] 

f Rabanus Maur[us] goes no further 
than “ that to the end some will always 
be in the world fit for Christ by His 
spirit and grace to inhabit.” [His words 
are: Ex hoc autem intelligitur, quod 
usque ad finem seeculi non sunt defec- 
turi (defuturi) in mundo, qui] divina 
mansione et inhabitatione[sunt] digni, 
—Raban. [Maur.] in 8. Matth. xxviii. 
19, 20. [apud Caten. Auream. Com- 
ment. in Matth. lib. vii. Op., tom. vy. 
p. 159. G. ed. Colon. 1626.] — [Ex- 
hortor ut... ad accipiendam coronam 
spiritali virtute] pergatis, habentes 
Dominum protectorem et ducem, 
{qui dixit, Eece ego yobiscum, &c. | 


110 The promise of the Holy Ghost in its fulness restricted to the Apostles. 


Conrerence one father of the Church that extends the sense of this 


WITH 
FisHer. 


John xiy. 
16. 


John xyi. 
18. 


place to divine and infallible assistance, granted hereby to 
all the Apostles’ successors. Sure I am 8. Gregory® thought 
otherwise. For he says plainly, “That in those gifts of God 
which concern other men’s salvation, of which preaching of 
the Gospel is one, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost, doth 
not always abide in the preachers,” be they never so lawfully 
sent pastors or doctors of the Church. And if the Holy Ghost 
doth not always abide in the preachers, then most certainly 
He doth not abide in them to a divine infallibility always. 
The third place is in S. John xiv. where Christ says, “The 
Comforter, the Holy Ghost, shall abide with you for ever.” 
Most true again. For the Holy Ghost did abide with the 
Apostles according to Christ’s promise there made, and shall 
abide with their successors for ever, to comfort and preserve 
them.2 But here is no promise of divine infallibility made 
unto them. And for that promise which is made, and ex- 
pressly of infalhbilty, S. John xvi., though not cited by 
A. C., that is confined to the Apostles only, for the settling 
of them “in all truth.” And yet not simply all: for there 


saith 5. Cyprian, lib. iv. Epist. 1. 
[Epist. Ixxxi. ad Rogatianum et 
czteros confessores, Op. p. 163, ed. 
Benedict.] But he doth not say, How 
far forth.— And, Loquitur fidelibus si- 
eut uni corpori, [saith] 8. Chrysostom, 
Homil.in 8. Matth. [His words are: 
οὐ μετ᾽ ἐκείνων δὲ μόνον εἶπεν ἔσεσθαι, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ πάντων τῶν μετ᾽ ἐκείνους 
πιστευσάντων" οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἔως τῆς συν- 
τελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος οἱ ἀπόστολοι μένειν 
ἔμελλον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἑνὶ σώματι διαλέγεται 
τοῖς πιστοῖς.---. Chrysost. in Matth. 
Hom. xe. (al. xci.) cap. 2. Op., tom. vii. 
p. 841. D. ed. Benedict.] And if S. 
Chrysostom enlarge it so far, I hope 
A.C. will not extend the assistance, 
given or promised here to the whole 
body of the faithful, to an infallible 
and divine assistance in every of them, 
as well as in the pastors and doctors 
& In [his igitur] donis, quibus salus 
aliorum queeritur, qualia sunt pro- 
phetiz et interpretationes sermonum, 
&c., Spiritus Sanctus nequaquam sem- 
per in preedicatoribus permanet.—S. 
Greg. [Magn.] Moral. lib. ii. cap. 29. 
(vet. xlii.) in prine. ed. Basil. 1551. 
{His words are: Alia namque sunt 
dona Illius, sine quibus ad vitam ne- 
quaquam pertingitur; alia, quibus vite 


sanctitas pro aliorum utilitate decla- 
ratur. Mansuetudo namque, humilitas, 
patientia, fides, spes, caritas, dona Ejus 
sunt; sed ea sine quibus ad vitam ho- 
mines pervenire nequaquam possunt. 
Prophetize autem, virtus curationum, 
genera linguarum, interpretatio sermo- 
num, dona jus sunt ; sed quee virtutis 
Hjus preesentiam pro correctione intu- 
entium ostendunt. In hisigitur donis, 
sine quibus ad vitam perveniri non 
potest, Sanctus Spiritus sive in preedi- 
catoribus suis, sive in electis omnibus, 
semper manet; in illis autem, quibus 
per ostensionem Illius non nostra vita 
servatur, sed aliorum queeritur, nequa- 
quam semper in preedicatoribus per- 
manet.—S. Greg. Magn. Moral. lib. ii. 
in cap. I. beati Job. cap. lvi. Op., tom. 
i. col. 73. ed. Benedict. | 

h [Ut maneat vobiscum in eeter- 
num, gq. d.] Iste consolator non 
auferetur a vobis, sicut subtrahitur 
humanitas mea per mortem, sed 
zternaliter erit vobiscum; hic per 
gratiam, [sed] in futuro per gloriam. 
—Lyra, in 8. Joh. xiv. 16. [apud Bibl. 
Sacr. cum Gloss. ordinar. &e.] Yon 
see there the Holy Ghost shall be pre- 
sent by consolation and grace, not by 
infallible assistance. 


Tradition a moral, not a divine, Ground of Belief. 


are some truths, saith S. Augustine,’ which no man’s soul 
can comprehend in this life. Not simply all; but ail those 
truths, gue non poterant portare, “ which they were not able to 
bear,” when He conversed with them.* Not simply all: but all 
that was necessary for the founding, propagating, establish- 
ing, and confirming the Christian Church. But if any man 
take the boldness to enlarge this promise, in the fulness of it, 
beyond the persons of the Apostles themselves, that will fall 
out which 5. Augustine hath in a manner prophesied : 
“every heretic will shelter himself and his vanities under 
this colour of infallible verity.” ! 

XXX.—I told you a little before that A. C.’s pen was 
troubled, and failed him: therefore I will help to make out his 
inference for him, that his cause may have all the strength it 
can. And, as I conceive, this is that he would have :—The 
tradition of the present Church is as able to work in us 
divine and infailible faith, that the Scripture is the word of 
God, as that the Bible, or books of Scripture, now printed 
and in use, is a true copy of that which was first written by 
the penmen of the Holy Ghost, and delivered to the Church. 
It is most true, the tradition of the present Church is alike 
operative and powerful in and over both these works; but 
neither divine nor infallible in either. But as it is the first 
moral inducement to persuade that Scripture is the word 
of God, so is it also the first, but moral still, that the Bible 
we now have, is a true copy of that which was first written. 
But then, as in the former, so in this latter, for the true 
copy, the last resolution of our faith cannot possibly rest 
upon the naked tradition of the present Church, but must, 


by and with it, go higher to 


i [Proinde quod ait, Docebit vos] 
omnem veritatem, [vel, Deducet vos in 
omni veritate,] non arbitror in hac 
vita in cujusquam mente [posse] com- 
pleri: [quis enim vivens in hoe cor- 
pore, quod corrumpitur et aggravat 
animam, possit omnem cognoscere ve- 
ritatem, cum dicat Apostolus, Ex parte 
scimus?]|—S. Augustin. in 8S. Johan. 
cap. xvi. 13.] Tract. xevi. (4.) versus 
fin. [Op. tom. ili. par. 2. col. 735. F.] 

k Spiritus sanctus, [quem promisit 
Dominus se discipulis suis esse mis- 
surum], qui eos doceret omnem veri- 
tatem, quam tunc, [quando] cum eis 


other helps and assurances : 


loquebatur, portare non poterant.—S. 
Augustin. in S. Johan. [cap.] xvi. 12, 
13. Tract. xevii. (1.) in prine. [Op. 
tom. iii. par. 2. col. 736. D.] 

' Omnes autem insipientissimi Hee- 
retici, qui se Christianos vocari volunt, 
audacias figmentorum suorum, quas 
maxime exhorret sensus humanus, hae 
occasione Evangelicz sententizx colo- 
rare conantur, [ubi Dominus ait, Ad- 
hue multa, &c.]—S. Augustin. in S. 
Johan. cap. xvi. 12, 18, Tract. xevii. 
(3.) cirea med. [ibid. col. 738. B.] 

m (Ubi sup. Sect. xvi.] No. 27. 
{p. 105. ] 


{ΠῚ 


SEcTION 
ΧΥΙ. 


ἊΣ Cop: 52: 


112 Tradition and Scripture, mutually, yet unequally, confirm each other. 


Conrrrence where, I hope, A. C. will confess we have greater helps to 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


A. C. p. 53. 


John xiii. 
13. 


discover the truth or falsehood of a copy, than we have 
means to look into a tradition; or especially to sift out this 
truth, That it was a divine and infallible revelation by which 
the originals of Scripture were first written: that being far 
more the subject of this inquiry than the copy, which, ac- 
cording to art and science, may be examined by former pre- 
ceding copies, close up to the very Apostles’ times. 
XXXI.—But A.C. hath not done yet: for in the last place 
he tells us, that tradition and Scripture, without any vicious 
circle, do mutually confirm the authority either of other. 
And truly, for my part, I shall easily grant him this, so he 
will grant me this other: namely, that though they do 
mutually, yet they do not equally, confirm the authority 
either of other. For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the 
authority of Church traditions, truly so called; but tradition 
doth but morally and probably confirm the authority of the 
Scripture. And this is manifest by A. C.’s own similitude : 
“For,” saith he, “it is as a king’s ambassador’s word of mouth, 
and his king’s letters bear mutual witness to each other.” 
Just so indeed: for his king’s letters of credence, under 
hand and seal, confirm the ambassador’s authority infallibly 
to all that know seal and hand: but the ambassador’s word 
of mouth confirms his king’s letters but only probably ; for 
else, why are they called letters of credence, if they give not 
him more credit than he can give them? But that which 
follows I cannot approve: to wit, “That the lawfully sent 
preachers of the Gospel are God’s legates, and the Scriptures 
God’s letters, which He hath appointed His legates to deliver 
and expound.” So far it is well, but here’s the sting: “that 
these letters do warrant, that the people may hear and give 
credit to these legates of Christ, as to Christ the king Him- 
self.” Soft: this is too high a great deal. No legate was 
ever of so great credit as the king himself." Nor was any 
priest, never so lawfully sent, ever of that authority that 
Christ himself. No, sure: for “ye call Me Master and 
Lord; and ye do well, for so I am,” saith our Saviour. 
And certainly, this did not suddenly drop out of A. C.’s 


n Will A.C. maintain that any Legate a latere is of as great credit as the 
Pope himself? 


Jesuits exaggerate the Authority of living Preachers. 113 
pen: for he told us once before, “That this com-  Sxorton 
XVI. 


pany of men which deliver the present Church’s tradition, 
that is, the lawfully-sent preachers of the Church, are A.C. p.52. 
assisted by God’s Spirit to have in them divine and infal- 
lible authority, and to be worthy of divine and infallible 
credit, sufficient to breed in us divine and infallible faith.” 
Why, but is it possible these men should go thus far to 


defend an error, be it never so dear unto them? They as 
Christ! Divine and infallible authority in them! “ Suffi- 
cient to breed in us divine and infallible faith!” I have 


often heard some wise men say, that the Jesuit in the 
Church of Rome, and the precise party in the reformed 
Churches, agree in many things, though they would seem 
most to differ. And surely this is one: for both of them 
differ extremely about tradition; the one in magnifying it, 
and exalting it into divine authority; the other vilifying 
and depressing it almost beneath human. And yet, even in 
these different ways, both agree in this consequent,—That 
the sermons and preachings by word of mouth of the law- 
fully sent pastors and doctors of the Church, are able to 
breed in us divine and infallible faith; nay, are the very 
word of Godt So A.C. expressly: and no less than so, 
have some accounted of their own factious words, to say no 
more, than as the word of God." I ever took sermons, and 
so do still, to be most necessary expositions and applications 
of Holy Scripture, and a great ordinary means of saving 
knowledge; but I cannot think them, or the preachers of 
them, divinely infallible. The ancient fathers of the Church 
preached far beyond any of these of either faction ; and yet 


4 For this A. C. says expressly of 
tradition, p. 52. And then he adds, 
“that the promise for this was no less, 
but rather more, expressly made to the 
lawfully-sent pastors and doctors of 
the Church in all ages, in their teach- 
ing by word of mouth, than in writing,” 
&e. p. 53. 

τ For the freeing of factious and 
silenced ministers, is termed “ the re- 
storing of God’s word to its liberty ;” 
in the godly author [W. Prynne] of 
the late Newes from Ipswich, p. 5. 
[““ Certainly till his Majesty shall see 
these purgations (viz. of certain 

VOL, 11.—Lavp. 


᾽ 


passages alleged to have been erased 
by Archbishop Laud from the Fast- 
book,) rectified, superstition and 
idolatry removed, God's sabbaths duly 
observed, the suppressed preachers 
and preaching of God’s word restored, 
SCS adi What then can we expect 
but plagues upon plagues, till such 
desperate persecutors be cut off, and 
God’s word and ministers restored to 
their former liberty, by our most 
gracious Sovereign?’”—Newes from 
Ipswich, &c..... First printed at 
Ipswich, and now reprinted for '. 
Bates. 1641.] 


I 


114 


The evidence of Tradition first in order of Time— 


Conrrrence no one of them durst think himself infallible, much less, that 


WITH 
FisHER. 





John iv. 


whatsoever he preached was the word of God. And it may be 
observed too, that no men are more apt to say, That all the 
fathers were but men, and might err, than they that think 
their own preachings are infallible. 

XXXII.—The next thing, after this large interpretation 
of A.C., which I shall trouble you with, is, That this method 
and manner of proving Scripture to be the word of God, 
which I here use, is the same which the ancient Church 
ever held, namely, tradition, or ecclesiastical authority, first ; 
and then all other arguments, but especially internal, from 
the Scripture itself. This way the Church went in S. Au- 
gustine’s time.s He was no enemy to Church-tradition ; 
yet when he would prove that the Author of the Scripture, 
and so of the whole knowledge of divinity, as it is super- 
natural, is Deus in Christo, “God in Christ,” he takes this 
as the all-sufficient way, and gives four proofs, all internal 
to the Scripture: first, the miracles; secondly, that there 15 
nothing carnal in the doctrine; thirdly, that there hath been 
such performance of it ; fourthly, that by such a doctrine of 
humility, the whole world almost hath been converted. And 
whereas, ad muniendam fidem, for the defending of the faith, 
and keeping it entire, there are two things requisite—Scrip- 
ture and Church-tradition,— Vincent[ius] Lirimens [15 |‘ places 
authority of Scriptures first, and then tradition. And since 
it is apparent that tradition is first in order of time, it must 
necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of nature ; 
that is, the chief upon which faith rests and resolves itself. 
And your own school confesses this was the way ever. The 


s And 8. Augustine himself, contra 
Faustum, lib. xiii. cap 5. [Op., tom. viii. 
col. 254. E.] proves by an internal ar- 
gument the fulfilling of the prophets. 
[His words are : Usque adeo nihil credi 
confirmatam] Scripturafrum aucto- 
ritatem,] que fidem suam rebus ipsis 
probat, que per temporum § succes- 
siones heec impleri [et effici ostendit, 
que tamen, ante quam fierent, pronun- 
tiavit.J—And Henr. a Gand. Summ. 
par. 1. A([rtic.] ix. Q{ueest.]| 3: [the 
four arguments are stated in Art. ix. 
Queest. 3. §§ 8, 9, 10, 11. p. 179. with 
long quotations from 8. Aug. de vera 


Relig.] cites 5. Augustine’s book de 
vera Religione. In which book, though 
these four arguments are not found in 
terms together, yet they fill up the 
scope of the whole book. 

* [Quod sive ego, sive quis alius vel- 
let exurgentium heereticorum fraudes 
deprehendere, laqueosque vitare, et in 
fide sana sanus atque integer perma- 
nere,] duplici modo munire fidem 
{suam, Domino adjuvante, deberet. ] 
Primo [scilicet] Diving legis auctori- 
tate; tum deinde Ecclesize Catholicze 
traditione.—{ Vin. Lirinens.] contra 
Heer. cap. 1. [p. 4.] 


that of SS. in order of Nature :—allowed by Fathers and Schoolmen. 115 


woman of Samaria is a known resemblance, but allowed by  Szcrrox 
yourselves: for “quotidie,* daily with them that are without, Δ" 
Christ enters by the woman, that is, the Church, and they 

believe by that fame which she gives, &c.: but when they 

come to hear Christ Himself, they believe His words' before ' [Word. .. 
the words of the woman: for when they have once found Fare aa 
Christ, *they do more believe His words in Scripture, than 1686.] 
they do the Church which testifies of Him; because then, 
propter illam, for the Scripture, they believe the Church ; 

and, if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture, 

they would not believe it.” Thus the school taught then; 

and thus the gloss commented then; and when men have 

tired themselves, hither they must come. The key that lets 

men into the Scriptures, even to this knowledge of them, 

that they are the word of God, is the tradition of the Church : 

but when they are in, they hear Christ Himself immediately 


« Henr. a Gand. Summ. par. 1. 
Artic. x. Q[usst.] 1. [§ 10. Ad 
fidem autem jam genitam confir- 
mandam et corroborandam in fideli, 
Maxime valet auctoritas intellecta 
Sacree Scripturee, cui fidelis adheeret, 
etsi videret illos per quos fidem 
acceperat a fide resilire, et per impos- 
sibile totam Heclesiam in aliis a fide 
discedere, ut possit dicere illud quod 
Samaritani ad Christum vocati per 
mulierem postquam Christum audie- 
runt dixerunt ad eam. Dixerunt 
enim illud Jo.4. “Jam non propter 
Tuam loquelam credimus, ipsi enim 
audivimus, et scimus, quia Hic est 
vere Salvator mundi,” ubi dicit Glos. 
super illud; “Et mansit ibi. Sic 
quotidie apud illos, qui foris sunt, 
nunciatur Christus per mulierem id 
est Ecclesiam, et credunt per istam 
famam, inde apud eos manet,” scilicet 
presens in Sacra Scriptura, in qua 
Ipse immediate loquitur fidelibus : 
unde dicitur in alia Gl. “ Prius 
audierunt famam, postea compere- 
runt preesentem, nec satis est, sed 
apud se manere faciunt, ut Ipsius 
verbis instruantur, que preeferunt 
verbis miulieris.” Sic certe fidelis, 
Sacra Scriptura cognita, et in ipsa 
Christo invento, plus verbis Christi 
in ea credit, quam cuicunque preedi- 
catori, quam etiam Hcclesie testifi- 
canti, quia propter illam jam credit 
Keclesiz, et si ipsa quidem contraria 
Scripture diceret, ipsi non crederet, 


et ideo talis robur fidei in auctoritate 
hujus scientiz perfectissime consistit. } 
—Sie quotidie, &e.—Gloss. [ordinar.} 
in 8. Joh. cap. iv. [ut sup. apud Henr. 
a Gand. ] 

x Plus verbis Christi, &e. [Henr. a 
Gand. ut sup. note ἃ The gloss 
quoted in the above extract con- 
tinues: Quia licet doctrina alicujus 
aliquis inducatur ad credendum, ta- 
men fides innititur divine veritati 
secundum se; .... Qui licet excitati 
fuerunt per mulieris verbum tamen 
magis crediderunt per Christum.... 
Per quod significatur, quod licet doc- 
trina philosophica fidei nostra sit in 
pluribus accommoda, tamen non credi- 
mus propter illam, sed propter sacram 
scripturam, et potissime propter 
Christi doctrinam.—Gloss. Ordinar. in 
8. Johan. cap. iv. 39. et seq. |—| Respon- 
deamus ergo et dicamus latitudinem 
Christianze credentiz sic esse dispo- 
sitam, ut] primam fidem tribuamus 
Scripturis canonicis ; secundam, sub 
isto, definitionibus et consuetudinibus 
Keclesize Catholicze, [juxta illum arti- 
culum iu Symbolo, Credo unam Sanc- 
tam Heclesiam, &c.]| Post istas [habent 
Christiani credere], non [quidem] sub 
poena perfidie, sed proterviv, [vel 
crasse contumaciee,| studiosis viris [et 
amatoribus veritatis.|—[Thom.] Wal- 
densis, Doctrinal. Fidei, tom. i. lib. 2. 
art. li. cap. 23. no. 9. [fol. 107. col. 3. 
ed. Paris. 1532.] 


12 


116 


Hence a twofold Divine and Infallible Testimony. 


Conrrrexcr Speaking in Scripture to the faithful ;¥ and “ His sheep” do not 


WITH 
FISHER. 


John x. 4. 


only “hear,” but know, “ His voice.” And then here is no 
vicious circle indeed of proving the Scripture by the Church, 
and then round about, the Church by the Scripture. Only 
distinguish the times and the conditions of men, and all is 
safe. For a beginner in the faith, or a weakling, or a doubter 
about it, begins at tradition, and proves Scripture by the 
Church; but a man strong and grown up in the faith, and 
understandingly conversant in the word of God, proves the 
Church by the Scripture. And then upon the matter, we 
have a double divine testimony, altogether infallible, to con- 
firm unto us, that Scripture is the word of God. The first 
is the tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves, 
who delivered immediately to the world the word of Christ : 
the other, the Scripture itself; but after it hath received this 
testimony. And into these we do, and may safely, resolve 
our faith. As for the tradition of after ages, in and about 
which miracles and divine power were not so evident, we 
believe them, by Gandavo’s full confession,” because they do 
not preach other things than those former (the Apostles) 
left in scriptis certissimis, “in most certain Scripture.” And 
it appears by men in the middle ages, that these writings 
were vitiated in nothing, by the concordant consent in them 
of all succeeders, to our own time. 

XXXIII.—And now by this time, it will be no hard thing 
to reconcile the fathers, which seem to speak differently im 
no few places, both one from another, and the same from 
themselves, touching Scripture and tradition ; and that as 
well in this point, to prove Scripture to be the word of God, 
as for concordant exposition of Scripture in all things else. 
When therefore the fathers say, We have the Scriptures by 
tradition,* or the like, either they mean the tradition of the 


y In Sacra Scriptura Ipse immediate 
loquitur fidelibus—Ibid. ({Henr. a 
Gand. ubi sup. note *.] 

Quod autem credimus posteriori- 
bus, cirea quos non apparent virtutes 
divine, hoe est, quia non preedicant 
alia quam quee illi in scriptis certis- 
simis reliquerunt: quze constat per 
medios in nullo fuisse vitiata ex con- 
sensione concordi in eis omnium suc- 
cedentium usque ad tempora nostra.— 


Henr. a Gand. Summ. par. 1. A[rtic.] 
ix. Qfucest.] 3. [8. 13. p. 180.] 

® Scripturas habemus ex traditione. 
—S. Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. iv. 
[πολὺ σοῦ φρονιμώτεροι καὶ εὐλαβέστεροι 
ἦσαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, καὶ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπί- 
σκοποι, οἱ τῆς ἐκκλησίας προστάται, ot 
ταύτας mapaddvtes.—Cateches. iv. cap. 
34. (al. 22.) Op., p.68. E. ed. Benedict. ] 
—[Nondum enim erat diligenter illa 
baptismi questio pertractata, sed 


The varying Statements of the Fathers reconciled.—Recapitulation. 117 
Apostles themselves delivering it; and there, when it 15 Srcrion 
XVI. 


known to be such, we may resolve our faith: or, if they 
speak of the present Church, then they mean that the tradi- 
tion of itis that by which we first receive the Scripture, as 
by an according means to the prime tradition. But because 
it is not “simply divine,” we cannot resolve our faith into it, 
nor settle our faith upon it, till it resolve itself into the prime 
tradition of the Apostles, or the Scripture, or both; and there 
we rest with it. And you cannot shew an ordinary consent 
of fathers: nay, can you, or any of your quarter, shew any 
one father of the Church, Greek or Latin, that ever said, 
We are to resolve our faith, that Scripture is the word of 
God, into the tradition of the present Church? And again, 
when the fathers say, We are to rely upon Scripture only,» 
they are never to be understood with exclusion of tradition, 
in what causes soever it may be had. Not but that the 
Scripture is abundantly sufficient, in and to itself, for all 
things,° but because it is deep, and may be drawn into dif- 
ferent senses, and so be mistaken, if any man will presume 
upon his own strength, and go single without the Church. 

XXXIV.—To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in 
this long discourse, to prove that Scripture is the word of 
God, I shall now, in the last place, put all together, that so 
the whole state of the question may the better appear. 

First, then, I shall desire the reader to consider, that 


tamen saluberrimam consuetudinem 
tenebat ecclesia, in ipsis quoque 
schismaticis et hereticis corrigere 
quod pravum est, non iterare quod 
datum est; sanare quod vulneratum 
est, non curare quod sanum est. Quam 
consuetudinem credo ex Apostolica 
Traditione venientem: sicut] multa 
qaz non inveniuntur in literis 
[eorum ], (sc. Apostolorum), [neque in 
conciliis posterioribus, et tamen, quia 
per universam custodiuntur  eccle- 
siam,] non nisi ab ipsis tradita et 
commendata creduntur.S. Augustin. 
de Baptismo contra Donatist. lib. ii. 
cap. 7. [Op., tom. ix. col. 102. E.] 

6 [Nemini autem dubium esse opor- 
tet, ad divinarum rerum cognitionem 
divinis utendum esse  doctrinis.] 
Neque enim scientiam ccelestium per 
semet [humana imbecillitas conseque- 
tur, &c.|—S. Hilar. de Trinit. lib. iv. 


[cap. 14. Op., col. 835. C. ed. Bene- 
dict. ]—{Proinde sive de Christo, sive 
de ejus Hcclesia, sive de quacunque 
alia re quee pertinet ad fidem vitam- 
que vestram, non dicam nos, nequa- 
quam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet 
si nos, sed omnino quod secutus 
adjecit], Si angelus de ccelo annun- 
ciaverit preterquam quod in Scrip- 
turis {legalibus et evangelicis ac- 
cepistis, anathema sit.|—S. Augustin. 
contra ([literas] Petiliani, lib. 11]. 
cap. 6. [Op., tom. ix. col. 301. E.] 

© Quum sit perfectus Scripturarum 
canon, sibique ad omnia satis superque 
sufficiat, [ut ei ecclesiasticz intelli- 
gentis jungatur auctoritas ?] —Vin. 
Lirinens. contra Her. cap. ii. 
ΓΡΡ- 4, 5.] And if it be sibi ad 
omnia, then to this, to prove itself, 
at least after tradition hath prepared 
us to receive it. 





118 (1.) Principles presupposed. (2.) Principles of Theology matters of Faith ; 


Conrerence every rational science requires some principles quite without 


WIth 


FIsHeEr. 


its own limits, which are not proved in that science, but pre- 
supposed. Thus rhetoric presupposes grammar, and music, 
arithmetic. Therefore it is most reasonable that”Theology 
should be allowed to have some principles also, which she 
proves not, but presupposes. And the chiefest of these is, 
That the Scriptures are of divine authority. 

Secondly, That there is a great deal of difference in the 
manner of confirming the principles of divinity, and those of 
any other art or science whatsoever. 

For the principles of all other sciences do finally resolve, 


either into the conclusions of some higher science, or into those 


principles which are per se nota, “ known by their own light,” 
and are the grounds and principles of all science. And this 
is it, which properly makes them sciences, because they pro- 
ceed with such strength of demonstration, as forces reason to 
yield unto them. But the principles of divinity resolve not 
into the grounds of natural reason,—for then there would 
be no room for faith, but all would be either knowledge or 
vision,—but, into the maxims of divine knowledge super- 
natural. And of this we have just so much light, and no 
more, than God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture. 
Thirdly, That though the evidence of these supernatural 
truths, which divinity teaches, appears not so manifest as 
that of the natural; yet they are in themselves much more 
sure and infallible then they.° For they proceed immediately 
from God, that Heavenly Wisdom, which being the foundation 
of ours, must needs infinitely precede ours, both in nature 


4 Omnis scientia preesupponit fidem 
aliquam.—S. Prosper. in Psalm. exxiii. 
Perhaps the passage alluded to by 
Laud in citing this maxim may be: 
Vide igitur Deum primo per fidem, 
ut postea possis videre per speciem.— 
S. Prosper. Aquitan. Expos. in Ps. exx. 
4, Op., col. 446. D. ed. Paris. 1711.] 
And §. Cyril. Hierosolym. Cateches. vy. 
[cap. 3. (al. 2.) Op., p. 72. E. καὶ οὐ 
παρ᾽ ἡμῖν γε μόνοις, τοῖς THY TOD Χριστοῦ 
προσηγορίαν ἔχουσιν, μέγα τὸ τῆς πί- 
στεως ἐστὶν ἀξίωμα ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ πάντα 
τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τελούμενα, καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ 
τῶν ἀλλοτρίων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, τῇ πίστει 
τελεῖται] Shews how all things in 
the world do fide consistere. 'There- 
fore most unreasonable to deny that 


to divinity, which all sciences, nay all 
things, challenge: namely, some things 
to be presupposed and believed. 

e Si vis credere manifestis, invi- 
sibilibus magis quam  visibilibus 
oportet credere. Licet dictum sit 
admirabile, verum est, &ce.—S. Chry- 
sostom. Hom. xlvi. ad Pop. [. 6. in 
8.Matth. Homil. xiii. vide infra, p.124. 
note P.| And there he proves it.—Aliz 
scientize certitudinem habent ex natu- 
rali lumine rationis humane, que po- 
test [errare]: heece (sc. Theologia) au- 
tem [certitudinem habet] ex lumine 
divinze scientize, quae decipi non po- 
test.—Thom. | Aquin. Secund.] par. 1. 
Q[ueest.] i, A[rt.] 5. in conclus. 


(3.) and therefore more sure than those of other Sciences. itd 


and excellence. “He that teacheth man knowledge, shall  Sxcrioy 
not He know?”! And therefore, though we reach not the _*¥! 
order of their deductions, nor can in this life come to the Psa. xciv. 
vision of them, yet we yield as full and firm assent, not only ~~ 

to the articles, but to all the things nightly deduced from 

them, as we do to the most evident principles of natural 
reason. This assent is called faith; and “faith beimg of 

things not seen,” would quite lose its honour,’ nay itself, if Heb. xi. 1. 
it met with sufficient grounds in natural reason whereon 

to stay itself. For faith is a mixed act of the will and the 
understanding ; and the will inclines the understanding" to 


f Psal. xciv. 10. Our old English tom. v. col. 693. A.]|—[Non est dicen- 


translation reads it, “Shall not He 
punish?” that is, Shall not He know 
when, and why, and how to punish ? 

& Si sit ratio convincens, et propter 
eam quis credat, alias non crediturus, 
tollitur meritum fidei.—{Gabr.] Biel. 
in III. [Sentent.} D[istinct.] xxv. 
Q[ueest.] unica. [Dub. 4. T.] in fine. 
[His words are: Ultimo dubitatur 
utrum ratio naturalis, inducta ad os- 
tendendum fidei veritatem, diminuat 
fidei meritum...Respondetur sic in 
beatum Thomam Secund. Secund. 
Queest ii. art. 10. quod ratio humana, 
inducta ad ea que fidei sunt, duplici- 
ter se habere possit. Uno modo ut 
precedens: puta cum aliquis assentit 
veritati fidei propter rationem con- 
vincentem, alias non erediturus. Ht 
sie ratio inducta diminuit meritum 
fidei, imo totum tollit: ita quod sic 
assentiendo non meretur.|—Non est 
dicendus credere, cujus judicium sub- 
igitur aut cogitur. — Stapleton. 
Triplicat. adversus Whitaker. [pro 
ecclesiz auctoritate,] cap. vi. p. 64. 
[Ope ἰοτη τ ν᾽ U5 7. Ἀπ 

h [Ecce promittitur (in his verbis 
se. Cum venerit Ille, arguet mundum 
&e.,) convictio et redargutio, tamen 
non perversio.... Est enim] fides 
{[voluntaria,] nec fit in nobis nisi 
volentibus, [convictio autem fit etiam 
nolentibus.]— (Cardinal.] Tolet. in 
8. Johan. xvi. Annot. 33. [seu potius, 
18. Comment. in Johan. Evangel. 
tom. ii. col. 154. F. ed. Lugd. 1615.] 
—(Recte itaque idem Spiritus arguit 
mundum, et de peccato, quia non credit 
in Christum ; et de justitia, quia] qui 
voluerunt crediderunt, [quamvis in 
quem crediderunt non viderunt.]— 
S. Augustin. Serm. Ix. de verb. Dom. 
cap. 5.[Serm. exliii. de verbis Evangelii 
Johan, xvi. Ego veritatem &c. Op., 





dus credere, cujus judicium subigitur 
aut cogitur, quia] fides actus est non 
solius intellectus, sed etiam voluntatis, 
que cogi non potest; imo magis 


vyoluntatis quam  intellectus: sed 
etiam, quatenus illa operationis 
principium est, et assensum, qui 


proprie fidei actus est, sola elicit; 
nec ab intellectu  voluntas, sed a 
voluntate intellectus, in actu fidei 
determinatur. —Stapleton. Triplicat. 
adversus Whitaker. cap. vi. &c. [ubi 
sup. note £.]—[Actus autem fidei 
est] credere...-.- [qui] actus est 
intellectus determinati ad unum ex 
imperio voluntatis —Thom. [Aquin. | 
Secund. Secund. Q[uest.] iv. A[rt.] 1. 
in conclus. — [Et sic dico quod] 
non potest dari aliquis assensus 
fidei, quicunque sit ille, qui non de- 
pendeat in suis causis mediate vel 
immediate ab actu voluntatis.—Jac. 
Almain. in III. Sent. D[istinct.} xxiv. 
Conclus. 6. Dub. 4. fol. Ixxix.—And 
S. Augustine says, Fidei locum esse 
cor: [in these words: Quantaslibet 
tamen adversum nos erigat machinas, 
quando non tenet locum cordis ubi 
fides habitat, ejectus est foras.|— 
Tractat. lii.in 8. Johan. [cap. xii. Op., 
tom. iii. par. 2. col. 642. D.] Where 
the heart is put for the whole soul, 
which equally comprehends both the 
will and the understanding —And so 
doth [Gabr.] Biel also, [Hee est fides 
implicita qua fidelis credit quicquid 
ecclesia credit; utilissima est fideli: 
nam si fuerit in corde, defendit ab 
omni heretica pravitate: ut dicit 
Ocham &e.... Non enim aliquatenus 
heereticari valet, qui corde credit quic- 
quid Ecclesia credit. |—in ITI. Sentent. 
D[istinet.] xxv. Q[uzst.] unic. Art. 1, 
{Coroll. 4.] F. 


120 (4.) Credibility of SS. not dependent solely on Testimony of Church. 


Corrrrence yield full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proof. 


WITH 
FISHER. 


Matt.xi.25. 


(4.) 


Not but that there is most full proof of them, but because 
the main grounds which prove them are concealed from our 
view, and folded up in the unrevealed counsel of God; God 
in Christ resolving to bring mankind to their last happiness 
by faith, and not by knowledge, that so the weakest among 
men may have their way to blessedness open. And certain 
it is, that many weak men believe themselves into heaven, 
and many over-knowing Christians lose their way thither, 
while they will believe no more than they can clearly know, 
In which pride and vanity of theirs they are left, and have 
these things “ hid from them.” 

Fourthly, That the credit of the Scripture, the book in 
which the principles of faith are written, as of other writings 
also, depends not upon the subservient inducing cause that 
leads us to the first knowledge of the author, which leader 
here is the Church; but upon the author himself, and the 
opinion we have of his sufliciency, which here is the Holy 
Spirit of God, whose penmen the Prophets and Apostles were. 
And therefore the mysteries of divinity contained in this 
book, as the incarnation of our Saviour, the resurrection of 
the dead, and the like, cannot finally be resolved into the 
sole testimony of the Church, who is but a subservient cause 
to lead to the knowledge of the author, but into the wisdom 
and sufficiency of the author, Who being omnipotent and 
omniscient, must needs be infallible. 

Fifthly, That the assurance we have of the penmen of 
the Scriptures, the holy Prophets and Apostles, is as great 
as any can be had of any human authors of like antiquity. 
For it is morally as evident to any pagan, that S. Matthew 
and 8S. Paul writ the Gospel and Epistles which bear their 
names, as that Cicero or Seneca wrote theirs. But that the 
Apostles were divinely inspired whilst they writ them, and 
that they are the very word of God expressed by them, this 
hath ever been a matter of faith in the Church, and was so 
even while the Apostles themselves lived,’ and was never a 


1 The Apostles, indeed, they “knew,” “He that saw knows that he says true, 
for they had clear revelation: they to that you, which saw not, might be- 
whom they preached might believe, lieve.”—Deus in Prophetis, et sie in 
but they could not know without the A-postolis, quosimmediateilluminabat, 
like revelation. So 8. John xix.35. causabat evidentiam.—Jac. Almain. in 


\ 


(5.) Our grounds of Belief the same as those of the first Christians. 


matter of evidence and knowledge, at least as knowledge is 
opposed to faith. Nor could it at any time then be more 


demonstratively proved than now. 


I say, not scientifice, not 


demonstratively: for, were the Apostles living, and should 
they tell us that they spake and writ the very oracles of 
God, yet this were but their own testimony of themselves, 


and so not alone able to enforce belief on others. 


And for 


their miracles, though they were very great inducements of 
belief, yet were neither they evident and convincing proofs, 
alone and of themselves ; both because there may be coun- 
terfeit miracles,* and because true ones are neither infallible 


ITI. Sent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uest.] 
unie. Conclus. 6. [His words are : 
Notandum quod prophete et apostoli 
qui fuerunt fundamenta nostra fidei 
habuerunt notitias certas et evidentes 
de aliquibus revelatis et certitudinem 
per argumentum topicum sicut habue- 
runt Judeei per miracula. ...Queritur 
ergo circa hoe utrum habebant noti- 
tiam evidentem ? videtur quod sic: 
quia Deus se solo potest causare omne 
genus notitiarum; sc. evidentiam, 
fidem, &c. Et sic queritur utrum 
causayerit evidentiam in prophetis 
quos immediate illuminabat Deus 
interius sine quocunque signo ex- 
teriori: credo quod causabat in eis 
evidentiam.—fol. lxxy.] But for the 
residue of men, it is no more, but as 
Thomas hath it : [Ap secunpum dicen- 
dum, quod argumentari ex auctoritate 
est Maxime proprium hujus doctrine, 
eo quod principia hujus doctrine per 
revelationem habentur. Et sic] oportet 
quod credatur auctoritati eorum, qui- 
bus revelatio facta est. — Thom. 
[Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. [Queest.] i. 
Afrt.] 8. 

* Non est evidens vel ista esse vera 
miracula, vel ista fieri ad illam veri- 
tatem comprobandam.—Jac. Almain. 
in ITT. Sent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[ueest.] 
unic. Concl. 6, Therefore the miracles 
which Christ and His Apostles did, 
were fully sufficient to beget faith to 
assent, but not evidence to convince. 
| Almain’s words are: Jam movetur 
dubium: Utrum audiens preedicari 
articulum, et videns fieri miracula, 
pro approbatione articuli acquirat 
aliquem assensum vel habitum dis- 
tinctum ab habitu fidei? videtur quod 
sic: audiens praedicari articulum sine 
miraculis acquirit fidem, sed cum 


hoe videns miraculum acquirit majo- 
rem assensum. (Responsio:) Ergo re- 
spondet Ocham quarto quodlibeto: 
q- vil. quod audiens articulum preedi- 
cari, et videns miracula, non acquirit 
alium preeter fidem, quamvis acquirat 
intentionem. Patet sic: nunguam 
acquiritur evidentia per medium quod 
potest de se generare assensum falsum 
sicut verum: sed ista miracula cum 
preedicatione possunt zque generare 
assensum falsum sicut verum. Patet 
sic: ille qui preedicaret legem Macho- 
meti, et faceret apparentia miracula 
sicut fecerunt magi Pharaonis, ita 
bene generaret assensum sicut ille 
qui preedicat articulum verum, et 
facit vera miracula; ergo de se illud 
medium potest ita generare assen- 
sum falsum sicut verum: dico quod 
nunquam acquiritur evidentia nisi 
per simplicem terminorum notitiam 
aut per notitias evidentes : prior 
tamen assensus illius articuli quem 
predicat non causatur ex simplici 
terminorum notitia, neque ex isto 
agssensu solo, ‘ista sunt vera miracula:’ 
sed causatur ex isto assensu, ‘ista sunt 
vera miracula, et ista sunt ad veri- 
tatem illius articuli probandam.’ (Re- 
solutio Doctoris.) Jam dico quod 
utraque istarum est inevidens: ‘ista 
sunt vera miracula:’ non enim est 
evidens neque potest causari assensus 
ex simplici terminorum apprehen- 
sione quod judicet firmiter ista sunt 
vera miracula, Similiter ista non 
est evidens, ‘ista fiunt ad illam veri- 
tatem comprobandam:’ nam aliquis 
dicat mihi: stat quod ille mentitur: 
hon causatur ergo propter queecunque 
miracula assensus articuli inevidentis, 
quia non est evidens quod sint vera 
mniracula, neque quod fiant ad pro- 


121 


ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ 


ΧΥΙ. 


122 Miracles neither infallible nor inseparable Evidences of true Doctrine. 


Conrrrence nor inseparable marks of truth in doctrine. 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


Deut. xiii. 


1—3. 

2 Thess. 
li. 9. 

Mark xiii. 
oP 

John x. 41. 


Not infallible, 


for they may be marks of false doctrine in the highest 
degree ; not proper and inseparable, for all which wrote by 
inspiration did not confirm their doctrine by miracles." For 
we do not find that David, or Solomon, with some other of 
the prophets, did any; neither were any wrought by S. John 


bandam veritatem articuli, et sic non 
causatur alius assensus preeter fidem. 
—fol. lxxvi.] 

1 Cautos nos fecit sponsus, quia et 
miraculis decipi non debemus.—[S. Au- 
gustin. in 8. Johan. Evang. [cap. iii. 
29.|] Tractat. xiii. [in illa verba, Post 
hee venit Jesus, ὅθ. Op., tom. 111. 
par. 2. col. 399. A.] And he that says 
we ought not to be deceived, acknow- 
ledges that we may be deceived, even 
by miracles. And arguments which 
can deceive, are not sufficient to con- 
vince, though they be sometimes 
too full of efficacy to pervert. And so 
plainly Almain out of Ocham. Nun- 
quam acquiritur evidentia per medium 
quod de se generat falsum assensum si- 
eut verum.—Jac. Almain. in III. Sent. 
D[istinet.] xxiv. Q[ueest.] unic. Cone. 6. 
[ubi sup. note *,] And therefore that 
learned Roman Catholic, who tells us 
the Apostles’ miracles made it evident 
that their doctrine was true and divine, 
went too far. “ Credible” they made 
it, but not “evident.” And therefore 
he is after forced to confess “that 
the soul sometimes assents not to 
the miracles, but in great timidity, 
which cannot stand with clear evi- 
dence.” And after again, “that the 
soul may renounce the doctrine for- 
merly confirmed by miracles, unless 
some inward and supernatural light 
be given, &c.” And neither can this 
possibly stand with evidence. And 
therefore Bellarmine goes no farther 
than this: [Undecima nota est gloria 
miraculorum, sunt autem duo funda- 
menta premittenda. Unum] quod 
miracula sint [necessaria] ad noyam 
fidem [vel extraordinariam missi- 
onem] persuadendam. [Alterum, quod 
sint] efficacia et sufficientia, [nam ex 
priore deducemus &c.—Bellarmin.] de 
notis ecclesie, lib. iv. cap. 14. ὃ 1. 
[Op., tom. ii. col. 206. D.] To induce 
and persuade, but not to convince. 
And Thomas will not grant so much, 
for he says expressly : Miraculum non 
est sufficiens causa inducens fidem : 
quia videntium unum et idem mira- 
culum, quidam credunt, et quidam 


non [credunt.|—Thom. [Aquin.] Se- 
eund. Secund. Q{ueest.] vi. A[rt.]1. in 
conclus.—And Ambrosius Catharinus, 
in Rom. x. 15, is downright at Nulla 
fides est habenda signo: [his verbis : 
sec. Ostendunt, queeso, quisnam mise- 
rii eos? Nemo enim a se ipso 
mittitur. Quod si Deus invisibiliter 
illos mittit, ostendant nobis signum: 
quanquam etsi darent signum, nulla 
fides est habenda signo. Quomodo 
autem przedicabunt |] examinanda sunt. 
—[Ambros. Catharin. in omnes Divi 
Pauli Epistolas, &c. p. 100. ed. Paris. 
1566.]— And Anastasius Nicaenus 
Episcopus, apud Baron. ad An. 360. 
Num. 21. [his verbis: sc. Fui et aspexi 
heereticum (sc. Macedonianum) Cyzici 
.. . preedictus episcopus heereticus... 
efficit ut loqueretur mortuus. . . Prop- 
terea non oportet, quemlibet, qui signa 
facit, tanquam sanctum admittere, sed 
examinare convenienter ei qui dicit, 
Nolite omni spiritui credere, &c.|— 
[Denique vel ipsa etiam opera miracu- 
lorum : nam heec etiam adulterari pos- 
sunt, et ita exterius fingi ut] non sint 
necessaria signa vere fidei.... [Sola 
autem externa signa aut opera non 
sufficiunt ad veram ecclesiam consti- 
tuendam.|—Suarez, defensio fidei Ca- 
tholice, [contra Anglican. &c.] lib. i. 
cap. vii. ὃ 3. [col. 34. F. ed. Colon. 
1614.] 

m™ Operatio virtutum ailteri datur, 
1 Cor. xii. 10. To one and another, 
he saith, not to all, &e—{[Sed quia 
Iste Deus et homo esse dignatus est, in 
eo quod Deus est, audi ut recreeris ; 
in eo quod homoest, audi ut imiteris : 
Discite, inquit, a Me, non mundum 
fabricare, et creare naturas. . . nec ipse 
dicit, Discite a me febres ab egrotan- 
tibus pellere,] fugare deemonia, mor- 
tuos suscitare ... {nec hoe dicit, Dis- 
cite a Me. Heec enim] dedit quibus- 
dam discipulis suis, quibusdam non 
dedit: (i. 6. to do miracles.) —S. Augus- 
tin. Serm. xxii. de verbis Apostol. cap. 
5. [Serm. elxiv. de verbis Apostol. 
Gal. vi. Invicem onera vestra, &c. cap. 
5. Op., tom. vy. col. 792. G.] 


The first Christians had neither demonstrative nor intuitive Knowledge. 123 


the Baptist. 
of as much force to us as it is possible for things on the 
credit of relation to be: for the witnesses are many, and 
such as spent their lives in making good the truth which 
they saw. But that the workers of them were divinely and 
infallibly inspired in that which they preached and writ, 
was still to the hearers a matter of faith," and no more 
evident, by the light of human reason, to men that lived in 
those days than to us now. For, had that been demonstrated 
or been clear, as prime principles are, in its own light, both 
they and we had apprehended all the mysteries of divinity 
by knowledge, not by faith. But this is most apparent was 
not. For, had the Prophets or Apostles been ordered by God 
to make this demonstratively or intuitively, by discourse or 
vision, appear as clear to their auditors as to themselves it 
did, that whatsoever they taught was divine and infallible 
truth, all men which had the true use of reason must have 
been forced to yield to their doctrine. Isaiah could never 
have been at Domine quis? “ Lord, who hath believed our Isa. liii. 1. 
report?” Nor Jeremy at Domine, factus sum, “ Lord, I am Jer. xx. 7. 
in derision daily.” Nor could any of S. Paul’s auditors 

have “ mocked at him,” as some of them did, for “ preaching [ Acts xvii. 
the resurrection,” if they had had as full a view as S. Paul 553] 
himself had in “the assurance,” which God gave of it, in and 

by “the resurrection of Christ.”° But the way of knowledge Acts xvii. 
was not that which God thought fittest for man’s salvation. a 

For man having sinned by pride, God thought fittest to 

humble him at the very root of the tree of knowledge, and 


So, as credible signs, they were, and are still, Srcrroy 
XVI. 


" Here it may be observed how 
warily A. OC. carries himself. For 


had. So A.C. is wary there, but 
comes not home to the business; and 


when he hath said, “ that a clear reve- 
lation was made to the Apostles,” 
which is most true; and so the Apo- 
stles knew that which they taught 
simpliciter a priori, most demonstra- 
tively from the prime cause, God 
Himself: then he adds, p. 51. “ I say, 
clear in attestante.” That is, the re- 
velation of this truth was clear in the 
Apostles that witnessed it. But to 
make it knowledge in the auditors, 
the same, or like revelation, and as 
clear, must be made to them. For 
they could have no other “ knowing” 
assurance: “credible” they might, and 


so might have held his peace. For the 
question is not, What clear evidence 
the Apostles had? but, What evidence 
they had which heard them ? 

° Acts xvii. 32. And had Zedekiah 
and the people seen it as clearly as 
Jeremy himself did, that the word 
he spake was God’s word and infal- 
lible, Jerusalem, for aught we know, 
had not been laid desolate by the 
Chaldeans. But because they could 
not see this by the way of knowledge, 
and would not believe it by way of 
faith, they, and that city, perished 
together. Jer. xxxviii. 17. 


124 


(6.) Assent to Divinity of Scripture a matter of Faith. 


Conrerexce Make him deny his understanding, and submit to faith, or 


WITH 
FISHER. 


hazard his happiness. The credible object all the while, 
that is, the mysteries of religion and the Scripture which 
contain them, is divine and infallible ; and so are the penmen 
of them by revelation. But we and all our forefathers, the 
hearers and readers of them, have neither knowledge nor 
vision of the prime principles in or about them, but faith 
only.P And the revelation, which was clear to them, is not 
so to us, nor therefore the prime tradition itself delivered 
by them. 

Sixthly, That hence it may be gathered that the assent 
which we yield to this main principle of divinity, “that the 
Scripture is the word of God,” is grounded upon no com- 
pelling or demonstrative raticcination, but relies upon the 
strength of faith more than any other principle whatsoever.‘ 
For all other necessary points of divinity may, by undeniable 
discourse, be inferred out of Scripture itself, once admitted ; 
but this, concerning the authority of Scripture, not possibly : 
but must either be proved by revelation, which is not now 
to be expected; or presupposed and granted as manifest in 
itself, ike the principles of natural knowledge, which reason 
alone will never grant; or by tradition of the Church both 
prime and present, with all other rational helps, preceding 
or accompanying the internal light in Scripture itself, which 


P [Hee ideo credimus, quia et illud 
de Elia, et hoe de Christo, sancta] 
Scriptura testatur, cui nemo pius nisi 
qui credit, [nisi impius nemo non cre- 
dit.|—S. Augustin. contra Faustum, 
lib. xxvi. cap. 6. [Op., tom. viii. col. 
437. F.] Now no man believes the 
Scripture, that doth not believe 
that it is the word of God. I say, 
which doth not “ believe;” I do not 
say, which doth not “know.” Oportet 
quod credatur auctoritati eorum quibus 
revelatio facta est. — Thom. [Aquin. 
Summ.] par. 1. Q[ueest.] i. A[rt.] 8. 
ad secundum, [Ὁ] sup. p. 121. 
note ‘.]—ér. δὲ ψυχὴν ἔχομεν [πόθεν 
δῆλον ; εἰ γὰρ δὴ τοῖς ὁρωμένοις μέλλεις 
πιστεύειν, καὶ περὶ θεοῦ, καὶ περὶ ἀγγέ- 
λων, καὶ περὶ νοῦ, καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς ἄμφι- 
βάλλεις, καὶ οὕτως σοι πάντα οἰχήσεται 
τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας δύγματα. καίτοιγε εἰ 
τοῖς φανεροῖς πιστεύειν βουλεύει, τοῖς 
ἀυράτοις μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς ὁρωμένοις πιστεύ- 
ew δεῖ" εἰ καὶ παράδοξον τὸ εἰρημένον, 


ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἀληθὲς, καὶ παρὰ τοῖς νοῦν 
ἔχουσι σφόδρα ὡμολογημένον ---ὅ., Chry- 
sostom. in Matt. Homil. xiii. Op., 
tom. vii. p. 175. C.] Quod vero ani- 
mam habemus, unde manifestum? Si 
enim visibilibus eredere velis, et de 
Deo, et de angelis, et de mente, et de 
anima dubitatis; et sic tibi omnia 
veritatis dogmata deperibunt. Et certe 
si manifestis eredere velis, invisibilibus 
magis quam visibilibus credere opor- 
tet. Licetenim admirabile sit dictum, 
verum tamen, et apud mentem haben- 
tes valde certum, vel in confesso.—Ex 
Homil. xiii. 8. Chrysostom. in S. Matt. 
[Op.,] tom. i. edit. Front. [Duczi,] 
Paris, 1636. 

4 And this is the ground of that 
which I said before, Sect. xv. No. 1. [ubi 
sup. pp. 61, 62.] that the Scripture 
only, and not any unwritten tradition, 
was the foundation of our faith: 
namely, when the authority of Serip- 
ture is first yielded unto. 


(7.) Knowledge of the Divine Essence unattainable by Reason. 


125 


though it give light enough for faith to believe, yet light Sxcrioy 
XVI. 


enough it gives not to be a convincing reason and proof for 
knowledge. And this is it which makes the very entrance 
into divinity maccessible to those men, who, standing high 
in the opinion of their own wisdom, will believe nothing but 
that which is irrefragably proved from rational principles. 


For as Christ requires a denial of a man’s self, that he may Luke ix. 


be able to follow Him: so as great a part as any of this 
denial of his whole self, for so it must be, is the denial of his 
understanding, and the composing of the unquiet search of 
this grand inguisitor into the secrets of Him that made it, 
and the overruling the doubtfulness of it by the fervency of 
the will. 

Seventhly, That the knowledge of the supreme cause 
of all, which is God, is most remote, and the most difficult 
thing reason can have to do with. The quod sit, that there 
is a God, blear-eyed reason can see;* but the quid sit, 


τ Intellectus credentis determinatur 
{ad unum] non per rationem, [sed] 
per voluntatem.—Thom. [ Aquin.] Se- 
eund. Secund. Q[uest.]ii. A[rt.]1. ad 
tertium, [ubisup. p. 88. note"]. And 
what power the will hath in case of 
men’s believing, or not believing, is 
manifest, Jer. xliv. But this is spoken 
of the will compared with the under- 
standing only, leaving the operations 
of grace free over both. 

5 Communis enim sententia est 
patrum et theologorum aliorum, de- 
monstrari posse naturali ratione Deum 
esse ; sed a posteriori et per effectus. 
Sic Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. 
Q{ueest.]1. A[rt.] 2. [Ad secundum di- 
cendum quod, cum demonstratur causa 
per effectum, necesse est uti effectu 
loco definitionis cause ad probandum 
causam esse : et hoc maxime contingit 
in Deo, quia ad probandum aliquid 
esse, necesse est accipere pro medio, 
quid significet nomen, non autem quod 
quid est, quia queestio quid est, sequi- 
tur ad queestionem, an est: Nomina 
autem Dei imponuntur ab effectibus, 
&c. |—Et, [S. Joann.] Damascen. Or- 
thodox. Fid. lib. i. cap. 3. [tom. i. 
p. 125. C. ed. Lequien. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν 
ἐστὶ θεὸς, τοῖς μὲν τὰς ἁγίας γραφὰς 
δεχομένοις, τήν τε παλαίαν καὶ καινὴν 
διαθήκην, φημὶ, ove ἀμφιβάλλεται, οὔτε 
δὲ τοῖς τῶν Ἑλλήνων πλείστοις᾽ ὡς γὰρ 
ἔφημεν, ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ εἶναι θεὸν, φυσίκως 


ἡμῖν ἐγκατέσπαρται. ]--- ἘΠ, [Jac.] ΑἹ- 
main ἴῃ III. Sentent. D[istinct.] xxiv. 
Qjueest.] unic. [Almain implies the 
same, but denies that the natural know- 
ledge of God is that of demonstration: 
he says, Illa propositio, ‘ Deus est,’ est 
demonstrabilis apud beatos, et non 
apud viatores : cum non possint habere 
medium per quod demonstraretur : 
puta notitiam simplicem et incom- 
plexam Dei.—fol. lxxiiij.]—But what 
may be demonstrated by natural 
reason, by natural light may the 
same be known. And so the Apostle 
himself, Rom. i. 20. Invisibilia Dei 
a ereatura mundi per ea que facta 
sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. And 
so Calvin most clearly, Instit. lib. i. 
cap. ὅ. 81. [Op., tom. viii. p.5. Ad 
heee quia ultimus beatee vite finis in 
Dei cognitione positus est; me cul 
preclusus esset ad felicitatem aditus, 
non solum hominum mentibus indidit 
illud quod diximus religionis semen, 
sed ita se patefecit in toto mundi opi- 
ficio, ac se quotidie palam offert, ut | 
aperire oculos nequeant, quin aspicere 
Eum cogantur: though Bellarmine 
would needs be girding at him, de 
Gratia et libero Arbitrio, lib iv. cap. 2. 
[Joannes Calvinus loco notato scribit, 
Ethnicos solo lumine nature cogno- 
visse generatim Deum esse aliquem, 
non tamen in veri Dei notitiam, qui 
unus et solusest, devenisse... At contra 


23. 


126 


Only in the measure in which He wills to reveal Himself. 


Coxrerence what that God is, is infinitely beyond all the fathoms of 


WITH 
FIsHEn. 


1 Tim. vi. 


[16.] 


reason.’ 


He is a light mdeed, but such as no man’s reason 
can come at for the brightness." 


If any thing, therefore, be 


attainable in this kind it must be by revelation,* and that 
must be from Himself: for none can reveal but he that com- 
prehends;¥ and none doth or can comprehend God but 


Himself.” 


sentiunt fere omnes theologi.— Bellar- 
min. Op., tom. iv. col. 624. C.|— Vide- 
tur autem et ratio iis quee apparent at- 
testari : Omnes enim homines de Diis 
(ut ille loquitur) habent existima- 
tionem.— Aristot. de Ceelo, lib. 1. cap. 
22. [Ἔοικε δ᾽ ὃ τε λόγος τοῖς φαινομέ- 
νοις μαρτυρεῖν, καὶ τὰ φαινόμενα τῷ 
λόγῳ. Πάντες γὰρ ἀνθρώποι περὶ θεῶν 
ἔχουσιν ὑπόληψιν, καὶ πάντες τὸν ἀνω- 
τάτω τῷ θείῳ τόπον ἀποδιδόασι, καὶ 
βάρβαρος καὶ Ἕλληνες, boot περ᾽ εἶναι 
νομίζουσι θεοὺς, δῆλον ὅτι ὡς τῷ ἀθανάτῳ 
τὸ ἀθάνατον cuvnptnucvov.—Aristot. de 
Ccelo, lib. i. cap. 8. Op., tom ii. p. 217. 
ed. Bekker. | 

t [Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ Beds, δῆλον" τί 
δὲ ἐστὶ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ φύσιν, ἀκατάλη- 
πτον τοῦτο παντελῶς, καὶ ἄγνωστον.--- 
S. Joann.] Damascen. Orthodox. Fid. 
lib. i. cap. 4. [Op., tom. i. p. 127. A. 
ed. Lequien. ] 

u 1 Tim. vi.16. Et ne vestigium si¢ 
accedendi relinquit S. Augustinus, [his 
verbis: sc.]| Nec si augeas imagina- 
tione cogitationis lucem solis[quantum 
potes, sive quo sit major, sive quo sit 
clarior, millies tantum, aut] innume- 
rabiliter, [neque hoc est Deus. Nec 
sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiri- 
tus ccelestia corpora inspirantes, atque 
ad arbitrium quo serviunt Deo mutan- 
tes atque versantes, nec si omnes, 
cum sint millia millium, in unum col- 
lati unus fiant,] nec tale aliquid [Deus 
est.—S. Augustin.] de Trinit. lib. viii. 
cap. 3. [Op., tom. viii. col. 867. C.]— 
Solus modus accedendi, preces sunt.— 
Boetius, de Consolatione Philosophize, 
lib. v. prosa 8. [Op., p. 1103. ed. Ba- 
sil.1570. His words are: Igitur nec 
sperandi aliquid, nee deprecandi ulla 
ratio est. Quid enim vel speret quis- 
quam, vel etiam deprecetur, quando 
optanda omnia indeflexa series con- 
nectit? Auferetur igitur unicum illud 
inter homines Deumque commercium, 
sperandi scilicet et deprecandi. Si 
quidem juste humilitatis pretio ines- 
timabilem vicem divine gratia pro- 
meremur, qui solus modus est, quo 


And when He doth reveal, yet He is no farther 


cum Deo colloqui homines posse vi- 
deantur, illique inaccesse luci prius 
quoque quam impetrent, ipsa suppli- 
candi ratione conjungi, &c. | 

x [Necessarium fuit homini ad 
salutem, quod ei nota fierent queedam 
per revelationem divinam, | que ratio- 
nem humanam excedunt ... Necessa- 
rium igitur fuit, preter physicas 
disciplinas, quae per rationem investi- 
gantur sacram doctrinam per reve- 
lationem haberi.— Thom. [{ Aquin. 
Summ.] par. 1. Q{ueest.] i. A[rt.] 1. 

y And therefore Biel is express, 
That God could not reveal any thing 
that is to come, nisi illud esset a Deo 
preescitum seu preevisum (7. e. unless 
God did fully comprehend that which 
He doth reveal).—[{Gabr.] Biel. in III. 
Sent. Dfistinct.] xxiii. Q[ueest.] ii. 
A{rt.]1. [Ad primum dicitur quod con- 
tingentia quorundam articulorum fidei 
non tollit, nee minuit certitudinem 
fidei non plus quam necessitas articu- 
lorum. Tum quia certitudo fidei, 
que est queedam infallibilitas, non 
innititur necessitati veritatis credite, 
sed divine revelationi que fallere non 
potest: non plus quoniam revelat 
contingentia, quam dum revelat ne- 
cessaria ; quia revelari non potest esse 
futurum nisi illud sit a Deo preesci- 
tum seu preevisum. | 

z Nullus [igitur] intellectus creatus 
videndo Deum, potest cognoscere 
omnia que Deus facit, vel potest 
facere. Hoc enim esset comprehen- 
dere Hjus virtutem: [sed horum, que 
Deus facit, vel facere potest, tanto 
aliquis intellectus plura cognoscit, 
quanto perfectius Deum _ videt.]— 
Thom. [{Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. 
Q[ueest.] xii. A[rt.] 8. in conclus.— 
Ad argumentum : [se. Quicunque 
videt speculum, videt ea, que in 
speculo resplendent: sed] omnia que- 
cunque fiunt, vel fieri possunt, in Deo 
resplendent, sicut in quodam speculo: 
respondet Thom. [his verbis: se.] Ad 
secundum [dicendum,] quod videns 
speculum non est necessarium, quod 


Antecedent grounds for the necessity of Revelation. 


discernible than Himself pleases. Now, since reason? teaches 
that the soul of man is immortal and capable of felicity ;° 
and since that felicity consists in the contemplation of the 
highest cause, which again is God Himself; and since Christ 
therein confirms that dictate, that man’s eternal happiness 
is to know God, and Him whom He hath sent ;* and since 
nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that con- 
templation but some revelation of Himself, and of the way to 
Himself; I say, since all this is so, it cannot reasonably be 
thought by any prudent man that the all-wise God should 
create man with a desire of felicity, and then leave him 
utterly destitute of all instrumental helps to make the attain- 
ment possible; since “God and nature do nothing but for 


omnia in speculo videat, nisi specu- 
lum visu suo comprehendat.—Thom. 
[Aquin. |] ubi sup. A[rt.] 8. ad Secun- 
dum. Now no man can comprehend 
this glass, which is God Himself. 

@ Deus enim est speculum volun- 
tarium, revelans que et quot vult 
alicui beato: non est speculum natu- 
raliter repreesentans omnia: [nec 
leguntur talia in Deo quasi in libro; 
sed viso Deo, si vult, producit Deus 
cognitionem rei illius vel istius. |-— 
[Gabr.] Biel. Suppl. in IV. Sent. [per 
Wendelinum Stambachum ejus audi- 
torem collectum,] D{istinct.] xlix. 
Ql ueest.] iii. propos. 3. [fol. celxxi. 
col. 3. ed. Paris. 1521. ] 

Ὁ For if reason well put to its 
search did not find this out, how came 
Aristotle to affirm this by rational 
disquisition? Δείπεται δὲ τὸν νοῦν 
[μόνον θύραθεν ἐπεισιέναι καὶ θεῖον εἶναι 
μόνον" οὐθὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ 
κοινωνεῖ σωματικὴ ἐνέργεια.] Restat, 
ut mens sola extrinsecus accedat, 
eaque sola divina sit, nihil enim cum 
ejus actione communicat actio corpo- 
ralis.—Aristot. de generatione anima- 
lium, lib. ii. cap. 3. [Op., tom. v. 
p- 248. ed. Bekker.] This cannot be 
spoken of the soul, were it mortal. 
And therefore I must needs be of 
Paulus Benius’s opinion, who says 
plainly, and proves it too, Turpiter 
affixam a quibusdam Aristoteli mor- 
talitatis animee opinionem.—[ Pauli] 
Benii { Eugubini]| in Timzeum Platonis 
Decad[es tres,| Decad. Prime, lib. 
111. [p. 126. ed. Rome, 1594. ] 

¢ For if reason did not dictate this 
also, whence is it that Aristotle dis- 


putes of the way and means of attain- 
ing it? Lib. i, Moral. cap. 9. [πὸ 
οὖν κωλύει λέγειν εὐδαίμονα τὸν κατ᾽ 
ἀρετὴν τελείαν ἐνεργοῦντα, καὶ τοῖς 
ἐκτὸς ἀγαθοῖς ἱκανῶς κεχορηγημένον, 
μὴ TOY τυχόντα χρόνον, ἀλλὰ τέλειον 
βίον; ἢ προσθετέον, καὶ βιωσόμενον 
οὕτως, καὶ τελευτήσοντα κατὰ λόγον; 
— Aristot. Ethic. Nicomach. lib. i. 
cap.9. Op., tom. ix. p. 18. ed. Bekker. | 
And takes on him to prove, That 
felicity is rather an honourable 
than a commendable thing. cap. 12. 
[τῶν ἀρίστων οὐκ ἔστιν ἔπαινος .. ... 
οὐδεὶς τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ἐπαινεῖ... .. ὃ 
μὲν γὰρ ἔπαινος τῆς ἀρετῆς .. ..- ἐστὶν 
ἡ εὐδαιμονία τῶν τιμίων καὶ τελείων᾽--- 
ibid. p.20.] And after all this, he adds, 
Deo beata tota vita est, hominibus 
autem eatenus, quatenus similitudo 
quedam ejusmodi operationis ipsis 
in est.—Aristot. lib. x. Moral. cap. 8. 
[ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνέργεια μακαριότητι 
διαφέρουσα θεωρητικὴ ἂν εἴη" καὶ τῶν 
ἀνθρωπίνων δὴ ἂν εἴη ἣ ταύτῃ συγ- 
γενεστάτη εὐδαιμονικωτάτη ....-. τοῖς 
μὲν γὰρ θεοῖς ἅπας 6 βίος μακάριος" 
τοῖς δ᾽ ἀνθρώποις, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ὁμοιωμά 
τι τῆς τοιαύτης ἐνεργείας ὑπάρχει"--- 
Aristot. Ethic. Nicomach. lib. x. 
cap. 8. Op., tom. ix. p. 212.] 

4 Ultima beatitudo hominis con- 
sistit in quadam supernaturali Dei 
visione, ad quam quidem visionem 
homo pertingere non potest, nisi per 
modum addiscentis a Deo doctore, 
{secundum illud Joannis, vi. 45.] 
Omnis qui audivit a Patre et didicit 
[venit ad Me.] — Thom. [Aquin. ] 
Secund. Secund. Q[ueest.] ii. A[rt.] 3. 
in conclus. 


John xvii. 


[3.] 


128 


This Revelation in SS. (8.) Various Evidences of it. 


Conrerence an end,” ὁ and help there can be none sufficient but by reve- 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


(8.) 


2 Pet. i. 16. 


lation; and once grant me that revelation is necessary, and 
then I will appeal to reason itself, and that shall prove 
abundantly one of these two: That either there was never 
any such revelation of this kind from the world’s beginning 
to this day—and that will put the frustra upon God in point 
of man’s felicity ;—or, that the Scriptures which we now 
embrace as the word of God is that revelation. And that is 
it we Christians labour to make good against all atheism, 
profaneness and infidelity. 

Last of all, To prove that the book of God, which we 
honour as His word, is this necessary revelation of God and 
His truth, which must, and is alone able to, lead us in the 
way to our eternal blessedness, or else the world hath none, 
comes in a cloud of witnesses ; some for the infidel, and some 
for the believer ; some for the weak in faith, and some for 
the strong, and some for all. For then first comes in the 
tradition of the Church—the present Church, so it is no 
heretical or schismatical belief; then the testimony of former 
ages, 50 it is no new belief; then the consent of times, so it 
is no divided or partial belief; then the harmony of the 
prophets, and them fulfilled, so it is not a “devised” but a 
forespoken belief; then the success of the doctrine contained 
in this book, so it is not a belief stifled in the cradle, but it 
hath spread through the world in despite of what the world 
could do against it, and increased from weak and unlikely 
beginnings to incredible greatness; then the constancy of 
this truth, so it is no moon-belief, for in the midst of the 
world’s changes, it hath preserved its creed entire through 
many generations ; then, that there is nothing carnal in the 
doctrine, so it is a chaste belief. And all along it hath 
gained, kept, and exercised more power upon the minds of 
men, both learned and unlearned, in the increase of virtue 
and repression of vice, than any moral philosophy or legal 
policy that ever was. Then comes the inward lght and 
excellency of the text itself, and so it is no dark or dazzling 





e Deus et natura nihil frustra 


autem est quod non potest habere 
faciunt. [ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ ἢ φύσις οὐδὲν 


snum usum.—Thom. [Aquin.] ibid. 


in Aristot. lib. de Coelo et 


μάτην mowdow.|—Aristot. de Ccelo, 
lib. i, cap. 32, [cap. 4. in fin. Op., 
tom. ii. p. 219. ed. Bekker. ]—Frustra 


[Ὁ 6: 
Mundo, Lect. viii. p. 18. apud tom. ii. 
Op., 8. Thom. Aquin. ed. Venet. 1595.] 


Infallible Assurance, through grace, the result of their united force. 129 


belief. And it is an excellent text: for see the riches of Srorroy 
natural knowledge which are stored up there as well as ANE 
supernatural. Consider how things quite above reason con- 
sent with things reasonable. Weigh it well what majesty 
lies there hid under humility: what depth! there is with a 
perspicuity unimitable: what “delight” * it works in the 
soul that is devoutly exercised in it: how the sublimest 
wits find in it enough to amaze them, while the simplest 
want not enough to direct them: and then we shall not 
wonder, if,—with the assistance of God’s Spirit,' Who alone 
works faith and belief of the Scriptures and their divine 
authority, as well as other articles,—we grow up into a most 
infallible assurance ; such an assurance as hath made many 
lay down their lives for this truth: such as that, “ though 
an angel from heaven should preach unto us another Gospel,” Gal. i. 8. 
we would not believe him or it. No, though we should see 
as great and as many miracles done over again to dissuade 
us from it, as were at first to win the world to it. To which 
firmness of assent, by the operation of God’s Spirit, the will 
confers as much or more strength, than the understanding 
clearness ; the whole assent being an act of faith, and not of 
knowledge. And therefore the question should not have 
been asked of me by Εἰ. “ How I knew ?” but, “ Upon what 
motives I did believe Scripture to be the word of God?” 
And I would have him take heed lest hunting too close after 


f (Divinus enim sermo... . habet 
in publico unde parvulos nutriat: 
servat in secreto unde mentes sub- 
limium in admiratione suspendat. ] 
Quasi quidam [quippe] est fluvius, 
[ut ita dixerim,] planus et altus, in 
quo et agnus ambulet, et elephas 
natet.—S. Gregor. [Magn. Epistola, ] 
Preefat. in Lib. Moral. [scil. Expos. in 
libr. Job.] cap. 4. [Op., tom. i. col. 5. 
E. ed. Benedict. | 

& In Lege Domini voluntas ejus.— 
Psa. i. 2,—Dulcior super mel et favum. 
—Psa. xviii. 11. et passim. 

h [Sed quia] multa dicuntur sub- 
missis et humi repentibus animis 
accommodatius, ut per humana in 
divina consurgant; multa etiam figu- 
rate, ut studiosa mens et quesitis 
exerceatur utilius, et uberius letetur 
inventis.—S. Augustin. de Moribus 
Eccl. Cathol. [et Manich. lib. i.] 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


cap. 17. [Op., tom. i. col. 698. F.]— 
Sed nihil sub spirituali sensu conti- 
netur Fidei necessarium, quod Scrip- 
tura per literalem sensum alicubi 
manifeste non tradat.—Thom. [ Aquin. 
Summ.] par. 1. Q[ueest.] i. A[rt.] 10. 
espyacmonwa: 

i (Sic ecclesiz auctoritas potest 
nos primo commovere, ut scripturas 
agnoscamus: postea vero cum scrip- 
turas ipsi legimus ac intelligimus, 
tum veram fidem concipimus et] 
credimus [quidem, non quia ecclesia 
credendum esse judicat, sed cum] 
ob alia multa certiora argumenta 
(quam est testimonium ecclesize), tum 
propter hoe potissimum, quod Spiri- 
tus Sanctus nobis intus has esse Dei 
voces persuadeat.— Whitaker, Con- 
trov. de Sacra Seriptura, Controvers. 1. 
[de Scripture auctoritate,] Q[ueest.] 
lii. cap. 8. [Op., tom. i. p. 325. col. 2.] 


K 


130 


CoNnFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsHER. 


(9.) 


A.C. p. 53. 
Et vid. 
Sect. xvi. 
No. 28. 
{ubi sup. 
p- 106.] 


(9.) Such Assurance is of Faith—Subject treated for edification. 


a way of knowledge, he lose the way of faith, and teach other 
men to lose it too. 

So then the way lies thus, as far as it appears to me, The 
credit of Scripture to be divine, resolves finally into that 
faith which we have touching God Himself, and in the same 
order. For as that, so this, hath three main grounds, to which 
all other are reducible. The first is, the tradition of the 
Church: and this leads us to a reverend persuasion of it. 
The second is, the light of Nature: and this shows us how 
necessary such a revealed learning is, and that no other way 
it can be πᾶ. Nay more, that all proofs brought against 
any point of faith, neither are nor can be demonstrations but 
soluble arguments. The third is, The light of the Text itself: 
in conversing wherewith, we meet with the Spirit of God! 
inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance 
of the sufficiency of all three unto us. And then, and not 
before, we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God, 
both by divine and by infallible proof. But our certainty is 
by faith, and so voluntary; not by knowledge of such prin- 
ciples as in the light of nature can enforce assent, whether 
we will or no. 

I have said thus much upon this great occasion, because 
this argument is so much pressed without due respect to 
Scripture. And I have proceeded im a syunthetical way, to 
build up the truth for the benefit of the Church, and the 
satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed. Whereas, had 
I desired only to rid my hands of these captious Jesuits,—for 
certainly this question was captiously asked,—it had been 
sufficient to have restored the question, thus, “ How do you 
know the testimony of the Church (by which, you say, you 
know Scripture to be the word of God) to be divine and 
infallible?” If they prove it by Scripture, as all of them do, 
and as A.C. doth, how do they know that Scripture to be 


k Cum fides infallibili veritati in- 
nitatur: et ideo cum impossibile sit 
de vero demonstrari contrarium : se- 
quitur omnes probationes, quee contra 
fidem inducuntur, non posse esse 
demonstrationes, sed solubilia argu- 


menta. — Thom. [Aquin. Summ.]| 
part. 1, Q[ueest.] i. Afrt.] 8. in 
conclus. 


1 Fidei ultima resolutio est in 


Denm illuminantem.—S. Augustin. 
cont. Fund. cap. 14. | His words are: 
Eos sequamur, qui nos inyitant prius 
credere, quod nondum valemus in- 
tueri, ut, ipsa fide valentiores facti, 
quod credimus intelligere mereamur, 
non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo 
intrinsecus mentem nostram illumi- 
nante atque firmante.—Op., tom. viii. 
col. 160. Ε΄ ubi sup. p. 87. note ».] 


i a 


a 


Scripture, an assumed principle to Christian men. 


131 


Scripture? It is but a circular assurance of theirs, by which Sxcrron 
XVII. 


they found the Church’s infallibility upon the testimony of 
the Scripture, and the Scripture’s infallibility upon the testi- 
mony of the Church: that is upon the matter, the Church’s 
infallibility upon the Church’s infallibility. But I labour 
for edification, not for destruction. And now, by what I 
have here said I will weigh my answer, and his exception 
taken against it. 


¥. The 25. said, That the books of Scripture are prin- 
ciples to be supposed, and needed not to be proved. 


%. Why, but did I say that this principle,—the books of 
Scripture are the word of God,—is to be supposed as needing 
no proof at all to a natural man? or toa man newly entering 
upon the faith ? yea, or perhaps to a doubter, or weakling in 
the faith? Can you think me so weak? It seems you do. 
But sure I know there is a great deal of difference hetween 
ethnics that deny and deride the Scripture and men that are 
born in the Church. The first have a farther way about to 
this principle; the other in their very Christian education 
suck it in, and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it, 
that the books, commonly called the Bible or Scripture, are 
the word of God. And I dealt with you as with a Christian,™ 
though in error, while you call Catholic. The words before 
spoken by me were, “That the Scripture only, not any 
unwritten tradition, was the foundation of faith”’ The 
question between us and you is, “ Whether the Scripture do 
contain all necessary things of faith?” Now in this ques- 
tion, as in all nature and art, the subject, the Scripture, is 
and must be supposed:" the query between the Roman 
Catholics and the Church of England being only of the pre- 
dicate, the thing uttered of it, namely, whether it contain all 
fundamentals of faith, all necessaries for salvation within it ? 
Now since the question, proposed in very form of art, proves 
not, but supposes, the subject,°? I think I gave a satisfying 


m DPixi sicut οἱ congruebat, ad quem 
scribebam. —S. Augustin. Retractat. 
lib. i. cap. 13. [Op., tom. i. col. 20. E.] 

» Nor is it such a strange thing to 
hear that Scripture is such a supposed 
principle among Christians. Quod a 
Scriptura evidenter deducitur, est 


evidenter verum, suppositis Scriptu- 
ris.—Bellarm. de Hecl. Milit. lib. iv. 
[i.e. de notis Heclesize,] cap. 3. ὃ 3. 
[Op., tom. ii. col. 167. C.] 

° De subjecto enim queritur sem- 
per; non subjectum ipsum. 


K 2 


[A.C.p.49.] 


§1 


(. 


189 706 Jesuit’s objection, That to assume Scripture as a Precognitum, 


Conrerence auswer, That to you and me, and in this question, Scripture 


WITH 
FIsHERr. 


[A.C. p 50.] 
1 (to... A.C.] 


was a supposed principle, and needed no proof. And I must 
tell you, that in this question of the Scripture’s perfect conti- 
nent, it is against all art, yea, and equity too, in reasoning 
to call for a proof of that here, which must go unavoidably sup- 
posed in this question. And if any man will be so familiar with 
impiety to question it, it must be tried in a preceding question 
and dispute by itself. Yet here not you only, but Bellarmine? 
and others, run quite out of the way to snatch at advantage. 


1. Against this I read what I had formerly written in 
my reply against! M. John White: wherein I plainly 
showed that this answer * was not good, and that no 
other answer could be made, but by admitting some 
word of God unwritten to assure us of this point. 


* [The Chaplain saith, That somebody told him, “that the 38. untied the 
knot:” But why doth not the Chaplain tell how he did untie the knot? It 
seemeth the knot was not so well untied, when the Jesuit had a reply so ready, 
as is insinuated, by his only going again and reading in the book which he had 
so rudely written. Although a precognitum in faith need not be so clearly 
known as a precognitum in science, yet there must be this proportion, that as 
primum precognitum, the first thing foreknown in a science, must be primo 
cognitum, first known, and must not need another thing pertaining to that 
science to be prius cognitum, known before it; so if in faith the Scriptures be 
the first and only foundation, and consequently the first thing known, primum 
precognitum, it must be in faith primo cognitum, first known, and must not 
need any other thing pertaining to faith to be prius cognitum, known before 
it. And so Church-tradition, which is one thing pertaining to faith, could 
not, as the Chaplain saith it is, and as indeed it is, be known first, and be an 
introduction to the knowledge of Scripture. Moreover, like as sciences which 
suppose a principle proved in a higher science, cannot have certainty of that 
principle, but either by having seen that principle evidently proved by other 
principles borrowed of that higher science, or by giving credit to some that 
have seen, or have by succession received it from others that have seen it 
evidently so proved: so faith cannot have certainty of her first principles, but 
either by seeing proof from the knowledge of the Blessed, which ordinarily no 
man now seeth, or by giving credit immediately to some who have seen, as to 
Christ Who clearly saw, or to the Apostles to whom clear revelation,—I say, clear 
in attestante,—was made, or by giving credit to others who by succession have 
had it from the first seers. In which last case, the certainty of these principles 
can be no greater than is the authority of that succession. If it be merely 
human and fallible, the science and faith is human and fallible. Neither can 
any science or faith be divine and infallible, unless the authority of that suc- 
cession be at least in some sort divine and infallible. 

The Chaplain therefore, who, as it seemeth, will not admit Church-tradition 
to be in any sort divine and infallible, while it doth introduce the belief of 
Scriptures to be divine books, cannot sufficiently defend the faith introduced 
of that point to be infallible, unless he admit an infallible impulsion of the 
private spirit ex parte subjecti, without any infallible sufficiently applied reason 
ex parte objecti, which he seemeth not, nor hath reason, to do: for this were 


P Quarto, necesse est [mosse,extare posset.—Bellarmin.] de verbo Dei, 
libros aliquos vere divinos, quod 11}. iv. cap.4 [Op., tom.i. col. 175. B.] 
certe nuilo modo ex Scripturis haberi And the Jesuit here, apud A.C. p. 49. 


implies the infallible Authority of some unwritten Word, of no force. 183 


to open the gap to enthusiasms of all upstart Anabaptists, and would take 
away due proportion of object and subject, and the sweet order of things which 
Divine Providence hath appointed. It may be that if he would but consider the 
tradition of the Church, not only as of a company of fallible men, in which sort 
the authority of it is but human and fallible, but also as it is the tradition of a 
company which, by its own light, sheweth itself to be assisted by Christ and His 
Holy Spirit, far more clearly than Scripture, by its own light, doth shew itself 
to be the infallible Word of God ; he would find no difficulty in that respect to 
account the authority of Church-tradition to be infallible, and consequently not 
only able to be an introduction, but also an infallible motive reason, or at least 
condition ex parte objecti, to make both itself, and the books of Scripture, 
appear infallibly, though obscurely, to our soul, disposed and illuminated by 
God’s Spirit, to have in them divine and infallible authority, and to be worthy of 
divine and infallible credit, sufficient to breed in us divine and infallible faith. 

Neither do I see why the Chaplain may not consider the tradition of the 
present Church these two ways, as well as the present Scriptures printed and 
approved by men of thisage. For if the Scriptures, printed and approved by 
men of this age, must be considered not only as printed and approved by men, 
in regard the credit given to them thus considered can be no more than 
human, but also as printed, and, by authority of men assisted by God’s Spirit, 
approved to be true copies of that which was first written by the Holy Ghost’s 
penmen, before we can give infallible credit unto them, I see no reason why 
the like twofold consideration of the tradition of the present Church may not 
be admitted ; especially when as the promise of Christ and His Holy Spirit’s 
continual presence and assistance (Luke x. 16; Matt. xxviii. 19,20; John 
xiy. 16,) was made no less, but rather more, expressly to the Apostles and their 
successors, the lawfully-sent pastors and doctors of the Church in all ages, in 
their teaching by word of mouth, than in writing, or reading, or printing, or 
approving copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles. 

Perhaps the Chaplain will ask me, how I know that any Church, or company 
of men of this age, or any age since the Apostles, have the promise of Christ 
and His Holy Spirit’s assistance? I answer that I know it both by tradition 
and Scripture, considered in the twofold manner aforesaid, both which, without 
any vicious circle, mutually confirm the authority of each other, as a king’s 
ambassador’s word of mouth, and his king’s letter, bear mutual witness of each 
other. And I do not want other both outward and inward arguments, or 
motives of credibility, which are sufficient not only to confirm the faith of 
believers, but also to persuade well-disposed infidels, that both the one and the 
other were sent from God: and that one is the infallible Word of God, 
speaking in and by His legates, the lawfully-sent preachers of the Church; the 
other, the infallible Word of God, speaking in and by His letters, the holy 
Scriptures, which He hath appointed His said legates to deliver and expound 
unto us, and which among other things do warrant that we may hear and give 
credit to these legates of Christ, as to Christ the King Himselfi—A. C. marg. 
note to p. 50. | 


%. I.—Indeed here you read out of a book, which you 
called your own, a large discourse upon this argument. But 
surely I so untied the knot of the argument that I set you 
to your book again. For yourself confess that against this 
you read what you had formerly written. Well, whatever 
you read there, certain it is you do a great deal of wrong to 
M. Hooker 4 and myself, that, because we call it a supposed 
or presumed principle among Christians, you should fall by 
and by into such a metaphysical discourse’ to prove, that 

4 [Eeel. Polit.] Book iii. chap. viii. that in the controversies between you 


[Sect. 14. ubi sup. p. 103. ] and us: [Agendum est enim non de 
τ Whereas Bellarmine saysexpressly,  stillicidiis et fundis, non de rebus 


SrctTion 


XVIII. 


§ 18. 


184 


Precognita of Religion not so evident as those of Sciences. 


Coxrerence that which is a precognitum,’ foreknown in science, must be of 


WITH 
FISHER. 


4 lGiPoeoc 
Editt.1673, 
and 1686. } 


such light that it must be known of and by itself alone ; and 
that the Scripture cannot be so known to be the word of God. 

I[.—I will not now enter again into that discourse, having 
said enough already, how far the beam, which is very glorious, 
especially in some parts of Scripture, gives light to prove 
itself. You see, neither Hooker, nor I, nor the Church of 
England, for aught I know, leave the Scripture alone to 
manifest itself by the light which it hath im itself. No; but 
when the present Church hath prepared and led the way, 
like a preparing morning light to sunshine, then, indeed, we 
settle for our direction, but not upon the first opening of the 
morning light, but upon the sun itself. Nor will I make 
needless inquiry how far, and in what manner, a precognitum, 
or supposed principle in any science, may be proved in a 
higher, to which that is subordinate or accepted in’ a prime: 
nor how it may in divinity, where pre- as well as post-cognita, 
things fore-, as well as after,-known, are matters, and under 
the manner of faith, and not of science strictly : nor whether 
a precognitum, a pre-supposed principle in faith, which rests 
upon divine authority, must needs have as much and equal 
light to natural reason, as prime principles have in nature, 
while they rest upon reason: nor whether it may justly be 
denied to have sufficient light because not equal. Your own 
school grants, ‘ That in us, which are the subjects both of 
faith and knowledge, and in regard of the evidence given in 
unto us, there is less light, less evidence in the principles of 
faith, than in the principles of knowledge, upon which there 
can be no doubt.” * But I think the school will never grant 


levibus, que parum refert, utrum 
sic an aliter se habeant:] non de 
metaphysicis subtilitatibus, quee sine 
periculo ignorari, et interdum etiam 
cum laude oppugnari possunt, &e.— 
Bellarm. Preefat. Operibus preefix, ὃ 3. 
[Op., tom. 1.1 

5. [Porro] his omnibus questionibus 
premittenda erit, [quasi magnum 
quoddam procemium, | controversia de 
verbo Dei. Neque enim disputari 
potest, nisi prius in aliquo communi 
principio cum adversariis convenia- 
mus: conyenit autem inter nos et 
omnes omnino heereticos, verbum Dei 
esse regulam fidei, ex qua de dog- 
matibus judicandum sit: esse com- 


mune principium ab omnibus con- 
cessum, unde argumenta ducantur : 
[denique esse gladium spiritualem, 
qui in hoe certamine recusari non 
possit. |—Bellarmin. Preefat. Operibus 
prefix. § ult. [Op., tom. i] And 
if it be commune principium ab 
omnibus concessum, then I hope it 
must be taken as a thing supposed, or 
as a precognitum, in this dispute be- 
tween us. 

τ Colligitur aperte ex Thom. [Aquin. 
Summ.] par. 1. Q[uest.] i. A[rt.] 5. 
[Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod 
nihil prohibet id, quod est certius 
secundum naturam, esse quoad nos 
minus certum, propter debilitatem 


In what sense Scripture was said to be a Precognitum. 


that the principles of faith, even this in question, have not 
sufficient evidence. And you ought not to do, as you did, 
without any distinction, or any limitation, denya precognitum, 
or prime principle in the faith, because it answers not in all 
things to the prime principles in science, in their light and 
evidence ;—a thing in itself directly against reason. 
I11.—Well, though I do none of this, yet first I must tell 
you that A.C. here steps in again, and tells me, “ That though 
a precognitum in faith need not be so clearly known as a pre- 
cognitum in science, yet there must be this proportion between 
them, that, whether it be in science or in faith, the precog- 
nitum, or thing supposed as known, must be prius cognitum, 
first known, and not need another thing pertaining to that 
faith or knowledge to be known before it. But the Scripture, 
saith he, needs tradition to go before it, and introduce the 
knowledge of it. Therefore the Scripture is not to be sup- 
posed as a precognitum, and a thing fore-known.” Truly 
I am sorry to see in ἃ manvery learned such wilful mistakes. 
For A. C. cannot but perceive, by that which I have clearly 
laid down before," that I intended not to speak precisely of a 
precognitum in this argument: but when I said, “ Scriptures 
were principles to be supposed,” I did not, I could not, intend, 
they were prius cognite, known before tradition; since I 
confess everywhere that tradition introduces the knowledge 
of them. But my meaning is plain—that the Scriptures are 
and must be principles supposed, before you can dispute this 
question, “ Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things 
necessary to salvation.”* Before which question it must 


intellectus nostri... . Unde dubitatio, 
quee accidit in aliquibus circa articulos 
fidei, non est propter incertitudinem 
rei, sed propter debilitatem intellectus 
humani: et tamen minimum, quod 
potest haberi de cognitione rerum 
altissimarum, desiderabilius est, quam 
certissima cognitio que habetur de 
minimis rebus.] — [Tametsi enim] 
articulorum fidei veritas non potest 
nobis esse evidens absolute, [tamen 
potest esse evidens ex hypothesi, id 
est, supposita veritate Seripturarum. | 
—Bellarmin. de notis Eeclesiz, lib. iv. 
cap. 3. ὃ 2. [Op., tom. ii. col. 167. C.] 

ἃ Sect. xvii. xviii. No.2. [ubi sup. 
p. 131, and p. 134.] 


x And my immediate words in the 
Conference, upon which the Jesuit 
asked, How I knew Scripture to be 
Scripture? were (as the Jesuit himself 
relates it, apud A.C. p. 48.) “That 
the Scripture only, not any unwritten 
tradition, was the foundation of our 
faith.” Now the Scripture cannot be 
the only foundation of faith, if it con- 
tain not all things necessary to salva- 
tion; which the Church of Rome, 
denying against all antiquity, makes 
it now become a question. And in 
regard of this, my answer was, That 
the Scriptures are and must be 
principles supposed, and precognite, 
before the handling of this question. 


135 


Srorron 


XVIII. 


136 The Precognitum of the Divine Authority of SS. not self-evident, 


Coxrerencu necessarily be supposed and granted on both sides, that the 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


Scriptures are the word of God. For if they be not, it is 
instantly out of all question, that they cannot include all 
necessaries to salvation. So it is a precognitum, not to tra- 
dition, as A. C. would cunningly put upon the cause, but to 
the whole question of the Scriptures’ sufficiency. And yet if 
he could tie me to a precognitum in this very question, and 
provable in a superior science, I think I shall go very near 
to prove it in the next paragraph, and entreat A. C. to confess 
it too. 

IV.—And now having told A. C. this, I must secondly 
follow him alittle farther. For I would fain make it appear as 
plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made, what wrong he 
doth truth and himself in this case. And it is the common 
fault of them all. For when the Protestants answer to this 
argument—which, as I have showed, can properly have no 
place in the question between us about tradition—they ¥ 
which grant this as a precognitum, a thing foreknown—as 
also I do—were neither ignorant nor forgetful that things 
presupposed, as already known, in a science, are of two sorts: 
for either they are plain and fully manifest in their own 
light; or they are proved and granted already, some former 
knowledge having made them evident. This principle then 
—the Scriptures are the oracles of God—we cannot say is 
clear, and fully manifest to all men simply, and in self-lght, 
for the reasons before given. Yet we say, after tradition 
hath been our introduction, the soul that hath but ordinary 
grace added to reason, may discern light sufficient to resolve 
our faith that the sun is there. This principle, then, bemg 
not absolutely and simply evident in itself, is presumed to 
be taught us otherwise. And if otherwise, then it must be 
taught in and by some superior science, to which Theology is 
subordinate. Now men may be apt to think, out of reverence, 
that Divinity can have no science above it. But your own 
school teaches me that it hath. “The sacred doctrine of 
Divinity in this sort is a science, because it proceeds out of 
principles that are known by the light of a superior know- 
ledge, which is the knowledge of God and the blessed in 


Y Hooker, [Eccl. Polit.] Book iii. chap. viii. [Sect. 14. ubi sup. p. 103, and 
Ῥ. 133.] 


a“ 


but proved by a higher knowledge in the Divine Mind Itself. 


heaven.’ In this superior science this principle—the Scrip- 
tures are the oracles of God—is more than evident in full 


light. 


This superior science delivered this principle in full 


revealed light to the Prophets and Apostles: this infallible 
light of this principle made their authority derivatively 
divine :* by the same divine authority they wrote, and delivered 
the Scripture to the Church: therefore from them immediately 
the Church received the Scripture, and that uncorrupt, 
though not in the same clearness of light which they had. 
And yet, since no sufficient reason hath [been], or can be, 


z [RusponpEo dicendum,] Sacram 
doctrinam esse scientiam. Sed scien- 
dum est, quod duplex est scientiarum 
genus. Queedam enim sunt, que pro- 
cedunt ex principiis notis lumine 
naturali intellectus, sicut Arithmetica, 
Geometria, et hujusmodi. Queedam 
vero sunt, que procedunt ex princi- 
piis notis lumine superioris scientiz : 
sicut perspectiva procedit ex princi- 
piis notificatis per geometriam, et 
musica ex principiis per arithmeticam 
notis. Et] hoc modo sacra doctrina 
est scientia; quia procedit ex princi- 
piis notis lumine superioris scientiee, 
quee scilicet est scientia Dei et beato- 
rum. [{Undesicut musica credit prin- 
cipia tradita sibi ab arithmetico, ita 
doctrina sacra credit principia revelata 
sibi a Deo.]|—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] 
par.1. Q[ueest.] i. A[rt.] 2.—And what 
says A. C. now to this of Aquinas? 
Is it not clear in him that this prin- 
ciple, The Scriptures are the word of 
God, of divine and most infallible 
credit, is a precognitum in the know- 
ledge of Divinity, and provable ina 
superior science, namely, the know- 
ledge of God and the blessed in hea- 
ven? Yea, so clear, that, as I told you 
he would, A. C. confesses it, p. 51. But 
he adds: “ That because no man ordi- 
narily sees this proof, therefore we 
must go either to Christ, Who saw it 
clearly ; or to the Apostles, to whom it 
was clearly revealed ; or to them who 
by succession received it from the 
prime seers.” So now because Christ 
is ascended, and the Apostles gone 
into the number of the blessed, and 
made in a higher degree partakers of 
their knowledge ; therefore we must 
now only go unto their successors, and 
borrow light from the tradition of the 
present Church. For that we must 
do; and it is so far well. But that 
we must “rely upon this tradition, as 


divine and infallible, and able to 
breed in us divine and infallible faith,” 
as A. C. adds, pp. 51, 52, is a propo- 
sition, which, in the times of the pri- 
mitive Church, would have been ac- 
counted very dangerous, as indeed it 
is. For I would fain know why lean- 
ing too much upon tradition may not 
mislead Christians, as well as it did 
the Jews. But they, saith 8. Hilary, 
[Ipse respondit, omnem plantationem, 
que non a Patre sit, eradicandam 
dicens, id est, ] traditionem [hominum 
eruendam, | cujus favore legis preecepta 
transgressi sunt.—[S. Hilar.] Canon. 
xiv. in 8. Matth. [xv. 13. (al. Com- 
ment. in 8. Matth. cap. xiv. 1.) Op., 
col. 685. A. ed. Benedict. ]—Yet to 
this height are they of Rome now 
grown, that the traditions of the pre- 
sent Church are infallible: and by 
out-facing the truth, lead many after 
them. And as it is, Jer. v. 31, “The 
prophets prophesy untruths, and the 
priests receive gifts, and My people 
delight therein: what will become of 
this in the end ?” 

@ [Ad secundum, quod Deus non 
creditur esse auctor hujus scientize, 
nisi quia homo hoc testificatuy : dicen- 
dum quod] non creditur Deus esse 
auctor hujus scientiz, quia homines 
hoe testati sint in quantum homines 
nudo testimonio humano, sed in 
quantum cirea eos effulsit virtus 
divina, et ita Deus eis, et sibi ipsi 
in eis, testimonium perhibuit. [Quod 
autem credimus posterioribus circa 
quos non apparent virtutes divine, 
hoc est quia non preedicant alia 
quam que illi in scriptis certissi- 
mis reliquerunt, que constat per 
medios in nullo fuisse vitiata ex 
consensione concordi in eis omnium 
succedentium usque ad tempora nos- 
tra.|—Henr. a Gand. Summ. p{ar.] 1. 
A[rt.] ix. Q[ueest.] 3. [§. 13. p. 180.] 


137 


Srcrron 


XVIII. 


138 


Case of Jews parallel to that of Christians. 


Coyrerence given, that in any substantial thing it hath been corrupted, 


WITH 
FIsuHer. 


Johnix.29. 


John v. 47. 


2 Pet. i. 19. 


it remains firm at this day, and that proved in the most 
supreme science ; and therefore now to be supposed, at least 
by all Christians, that the Scripture is the word of God. 
So my answer is good, even in strictness, that this principle 
is to be supposed in this dispute. 

V.—Besides, the Jews never had, nor can have, any other 
proof that the Old Testament is the word of God, than we 
have of the New. For theirs was delivered by Moses and the 
Prophets, and ours was delivered by the Apostles, which were 
Prophets too. The Jews did believe their Scripture by a 
Divine authority ; for so the Jews argue themselves: “ We 
know that God spake with Moses.” And that, therefore, 
they could no more err in following Moses, than they could 
in following God Himself. And our Saviour seems to infer 
as much, where He expostulates with the Jews thus: “ If you 
believe not Moses his writings, how should you believe Me ?” 
Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses? 
How? why, apparently the same way that is before set down. 
First, By tradition. So 5. Chrysostom: “We know why: 
By whose witness do you know? By the testimony of our 
ancestors.” ὦ But he speaks not of their immediate ancestors, 
but their prime, which were Prophets, and whose testimony 
was divine ; into which, namely their writings, the Jews did 
resolve their faith. And even that Scripture of the Old 
Testament was a “ light,” and a “shiming light” too; and, 
therefore, could not but be sufficient when tradition had gone 
before. And yet, though the Jews entered this way to their 
belief of the Scripture, they do not say, “ Audivimus, We 
have heard that God spake to Moses,” but, “ We know it.” & 


b Corrumpi non possunt, quia in 
manibus sunt omnium Christianorum 
. . .quisquis [enim] hoc primitus ausus 
esset, multorum codicum vetustiorum 
collatione confutaretur ; maxime, quia 
non una lingua, sed multis, [eadem ] 
Scriptura contineretur. [Nam etiam 
nunc] nonnulle autem codicum men- 
dositates, vel de antiquioribus, vel de 
lingua precedente, emendantur.—S. 
Augustin, lib. xxxii. cont. Faustum, 
ὁ. 16. [Op., tom. viii. col. 459. 1). ubi 
sup. p. 106. note .] 

© Maldonat[us, Comment.] in §. 


Joann. ix. [29. Scire se Mosi, quem 
ipsi preeceptorem sequantur, locutum 
esse Deum ;] itaque non magis errare 
posse eum sequentes, quam si Deum 
Ipsum sequerentur. 

a(S. Chrysostom.] Hom. lvii. in 
S. Johann. ix. (29. Hom. lviii. Op., 
tom. vill. p. 340. C.] ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν [ore 
Mage? λελάληκεν 6 Oeds*| τίνος εἰπόν- 
Tos; τίνος ἀπαγγείλαντος ; τῶν προγό- 
νων, φησὶ, τῶν ἡμετέρων. 

© §. Chrysostom. ubi supra: καὶ οὐκ 
εἴπαν, ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν, [ὅτι Μωσεῖ λε- 
λάληκεν ὁ θεός,] ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οἴδαμεν. 


— 


The Witness of the Church, a sufficient practical Assurance. 


139 


So they resolved their faith higher, and into a more inward Sxcrron 


principle, than an ear to their immediate ancestors and their 
tradition. And I would willingly learn of you, if you can 
show it me, wherever any one Jew, disputing with another 
about their Law, did put the other to prove that the Old 
Testament was the word of God. But they still supposed it. 
And when others put them to their proof, this way they went. 
And yet you say: 


«ἃ. 


ΤΌ. That no other answer could be made, but by admitting [A.C.p.51.] 


some word of God unwritten, to assure us of this 
point. 


%. I.—I think I have showed that my answer is good, and 
that no other answer need be made. If there were need, 
I make no question but another answer might be made to 
assure us of this point, though we did not admit of any 
word of God unwritten. I say, to assure us; and you express 
no more. If you had said, “ to assure us by Divine faith,” 
your argument had been the stronger. But if you speak of 
assurance only in the general, I must then tell you—and it 
is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath 
against infidels—a man may be assured, nay infallibly assured, 
by ecclesiastical and human proof. Men that never saw 
Rome, may be sure and infallibly believe that such a city 
there is, by historical and acquired faith. And if consent of 
human story can assure me this, why should not consent of 
Church story assure me the other, that Christ and His Apostles 
delivered this body of Scripture as the oracles of God? For 
Jews, enemies to Christ, they bear witness to the Old Testa- 
ment; and Christians, through almost all nations, give in 
evidence to both Old and New.£ And no Pagan, or other 


f [Consequetur namque omnium 
literarum summa perversio, et om- 
nium qui memorize mandati sunt li- 
brorum abolitio, si quod tanta popu- 
lorum religione roboratum est, ] tanta 
hominum et temporum consensione 
firmatum, [in hane dubitationem ad- 
ducitur, ut ne historiz quidem vulga- 
ris fidem possit gravitatemque obti- 
nere.|—S. Augustin. lib. de moribus 
Eccles. Cathol. [et Manich. lib. i.] 
cap. 29. [Op., tom. i. col. 707. F.J— 


[Tu in] eos libros, [qui,] quoquo modo 
se habent, sancti tamen divinarum- 
[que] rerum pleni, prope totius generis 
humani confessione diffamantur, [sine 
duce irruis, et de his sine praeceptore 
audes ferre sententiam. |—S.Augustin. 
de util. credendi, cap. vii. [Op., tom. 
viii. col. 56. B.|—Et, [Sibylla porro, vel 
Sibyllz, et Orpheus, et nescio quis 
Hermes, et si qui alii vates, vel theo- 
logi, vel sapientes, vel philosophi gen- 
tium, de Filio Dei vera pradixisse, 


§ 19. 


140 


Yet this Assurance of itself is not Divine Faith. 


Conrrrence enemies of Christianity, can give such a worthy and consent- 


WITH 
FISHER. 


ing testimony for any authority upon which they rely, or 
almost for any principle which they have, as the Scripture 
hath gained to itself. And as is the testimony, which it 
receives, above all “ writings of all nations,” § so here is assur- 
ance in a great measure, without any divine authority, in a 
word written or unwritten. A great assurance, and it is 
infallible too; only then we must distinguish infallibility. 
For, first, a thing may be presented as an infallible object of 
belief, when it is true and remains so: for truth, qua talis, 
as it is truth, cannot deceive. Secondly, a thing is said to 
be infallible, when it is not only true, and remains so, actually, 
but when it is of such invariable constancy, and upon such 
ground, as that no degree of falsehood at any time, in any 
respect, can fall upon it. Certain it is that by human autho- 
rity, consent, and proof, a man may be assured infallibly that 
the Scripture is the word of God, by an acquired habit of 
faith, cui non subest falsum, “under which nor error nor false- 
hood is :” but he cannot be assured infallibly by divine faith, 
cui subesse non potest falsum, “into which no falsehood can 
come,” but by a divine testimony.! This testimony is absolute 
in Scripture itself, delivered by the Apostles for the word of 
God, and so sealed to our souls by the operation of the Holy 
Ghost. That which makes way for this, as an introduction 
and outward motive,' is the tradition of the present Church ; 
but that neither simply divine, nor sufficient alone ito 
which we may resolve our faith, but only as is before* ex- 
pressed. 


seu dixisse, perhibentur, valet quidem 
aliquid ad paganorum yanitatem re- 
vincendam, non tamen ad istorum 
auctoritatem amplectendam; cum il- 
lum Deum nos colere ostendimus, de 
quo nec illi tacere potuerunt, qui suos 
congentiles populos idola et damonia 
colenda partim docere ausi sunt, 
partim prohibere ausi non sunt.— 
5. Augustin. ] contra Faustum, lib. xiii. 
cap. 15. [Op., tom. viii. col. 260. A.B.] 

¢ [Civitatem Dei dicimus, cujus ea 
Scriptura testis est, quae non fortuitis 
motibus animorum, sed plane summze 
dispositione providentize, |super omnes 
omnium gentium literas, [omnia sibi 
genera ingeniorum humanorum di- 
vina excellens auctoritate subjecit. ]— 


S. Augustin. de civitate Dei, lib. xi. 
cap. 1. [Op., tom. vii. col. 271. D.] 

h Tncertum [ergo] esse non potest hos 
esse libros canonicos, [et habere pon- 
dus auctoritatis sue, quibus Ecclesia 
declarata per omnes gentes, et ab 
apostolis propagata, testimonium cer- 
tum reddit.|—[Thom. Waldens. Doe- 
trinal. Fidei, tom. i. lib. 2. art. ii. cap. 
20. No. 8. fol. 102. col. 1. ed. Paris. 
1532. 

i Canus, Loc. Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. 
facit Eeclesiam causam sine qua non. 
[His words are: Non est enim Hecle- 
size auctoritas ratio per se prorsus ad 
credendum, sed causa sine qua non 
crederemus.—P. 59. ed. Lovan. 1569. ] 

k Sect. xvi. [No. 6. ubi sup. p. 77.] 


Something beside the Tradition of the present Church necessary. 


II.—And now to come close to the particular. 
was, before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ— 
which I thik no true Christian can look upon but with a 
bleeding heart—that you and we were all of one belief. That 
belief was tainted, in tract and corruption of times, very 
deeply. A division was made, yet so that both parts held the 
Creed, and other common principles of belief. Of these this 
was one of the greatest, “That the Scripture is the word of 
God :”! for our belief of all things contained in it depends 
upon it. Since this division there hath been nothing done 
by us to discredit this principle. Nay, we have given it all 
honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, even to the 
“ containing of all things necessary to salvation,” with satis 
superque,™ enough and more than enough: which yourselves 
have not done, do not. And for begetting and settling a 
belief of this principle, we go the same way with you, and 
a better besides. The same way with you ; because we allow 
the tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing 
motive to embrace this principle: only we cannot go so far in 
this way as you, to make the present tradition always an 
infallible word of God unwritten; for this is to go so far in, 
till you be out of the way. For tradition is but a lane in the 
Church: it hath an end, not only to receive us in, but 
another after, to let us out into more open and richer ground. 
And we go a better way than you; because after we are 
moved, and prepared, and induced by tradition, we resolve 
our faith into that written word, and God delivering it: in 
which we find materially, though not in terms, the very 
tradition that led us thither. And so we are sure by divine 
authority that we are in the way, because at the end we find 
the way proved. And do what can be done, you can never 
settle the faith of man about this great principle, till you rise 
to greater assurance than the present Church alone can give. 


1 Sic in alia causa, [se. de definitione 
hominis,] S. Augustinus [his verbis: 
sc. ΠΙᾺ est magis quod mihi hoe loco 
queerendum videtur, cum] inter omnes 
pene constet, aut certe, id quod satis 
est, inter me atque illos cum quibus 
nune agitur hoe conyeniat, [ex anima 
et corpore nos esse compositos, quid 
est ipse homo, utrumque horum que 
nominayi, an corpus tantummodo, an 


tantummodo anima?]—De moribus 
Keel. Cathol. [et Manicheeor. lib. i.] 
cap. 4. (Op., tom. i. col. 689. F.] 

m (Cum sit perfectus scripturarum 
canon, sibique ad omnia satis superque 
sufficiat, quid opus est, ut ei eeclesias- 
tice intelligentize jungatur auctoritas 1 
Quia videlicet &c.|—Vin. Lirinens. 
contra Heeres. cap. li. [p. 5.] 


141 


The time ϑποῖτον 


XIX. 


142 


The Divinity of SS. presupposed in the R. C. Controversy. 


Coyrrrence And therefore once again to that known place of 5. Augustine.” 
WITH 


FIsHER. 


[A.C. p.53.] 


The words of the Father are, Nist commoveret, “unless the 
authority of the Church moved me ;” but not alone, but with 
other motives: else it were not commovere, “to move together.” 
And the other motives are resolvers, though this be leader. 
Now, since we go the same way with you, so far as you go 
right ; and a better way than you, where you go wrong; we 
need not admit any other word of God than we do. And this 
ought to remain as a pre-supposed principle among all Chris- 
tians, and not so much as come into this question, about the 
sufficiency of Scripture, between you and us. But you say 
that . 


#. From this the Lady called * us, and desiring to hear, 
whether the %. would grant the Roman Church to be 
the right Church, the 3. granted that it was. 


%. I.—One occasion, which moved Tertullian to write his 
book de Prescript. adversus Hereticos, was, that he saw 


* [The Chaplain saith: “ As it is true that this question was asked, so it is 
false, that it was asked in this form, or so answered.” I answer that the Jesuit 
doth not say that the Lady asked this question in this, or any other precise, 
form of words, but only saith she was desirous to hear whether the %. would 
grant the Roman Church to be the right Church: which to have been her 
desire the Jesuit is sure, as having particularly spoken with her before, and 
wished her to insist upon this point. 

Secondly, he is sure, that she did not propound the question in that precise 
form, insinuated by the Chaplain, viz. Whether the Roman be a true Church; 
as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing the 38. say that the Roman Church 
is a true Church, and the Greek Church another, and the Protestant another. 
This, I say, could not be her question, for that she was persuaded that all these 
were not right and true, and that there was but one Holy Catholie Church ; 
and her desire was to hear whether the %. would grant the Roman Church, not 
only that which is in the city or diocese of Rome, but all that are agreed with 
it, to be it? 

Thirdly, what precise form of words the Lady did use, the Jesuit did not 
remember perfectly, and therefore did not adventure to set down ; but by the 
%3.’s answer, which he perfectly remembered, and so set down in these words, 
“Tt was,” he thinketh that her question was, Whether the Roman Church was 
not the right Church? viz. once, or in time past, before Luther and others 
made a breach from it? To which question so uttered, or so understood, as it 
seems by the answer, and the ensuing discourse made by the BG. it was understood, 
the 33. might truly, and certainly did, answer, as is related ; to wit, not “ Itis,” 
but “It was,” viz. once, or in time past, the right Church. Forso the Chaplain 
doth here confess, p. 37, “ The time was, &c. that you and we were all of one 
belief.” Out of which answer it may be that the 4. suspected that the Lady 
would infer; If once it were the right, what hindereth it now to be? since it 
did not depart from the Protestant Church, but the Protestant Church departed 
from it. And therefore, as in the text, he was willing to grant that the Pro- 
testants made a rent or division from it, &c.—A. C. marg. note to p. 53. ] 





5 Contr. Epist. Fund. cap. v. [ubi sup. p. 98. note % ] 


The Church of Rome a (not the) True Church, not a Right Church. 


little or no profit come by disputations.? Sure the ground  Sxero 
XX 


was the same then and now. It was not to deny that dispu- 
tation is an opening of the understanding, a sifting out of 
truth : it was not to affirm that any such disquisition is in 
and of itself unprofitable. 


143 


If it had, 8. Stephen would not Acts vi. 9. 


have disputed with the Cyrenians, nor S. Paul with the <Actsix.29. 


Grecians, first; and then with the Jews and all comers. 


the good of the disputation. And one abuse in the disputants 
is “a resolution to hold their own, though it be by unworthy 
means, and disparagement of truth.”? And so I find it here: 
for as it is true that this question was asked, so it is alto- 
gether false that it was asked in this form, or so answered.‘ 
There is a great deal of difference, especially as Romanists 
handle the question of the Church, between the Church and 
a Church; and there is some between a true Church and 
a right Church, which is the word you use, but no man else 
that I know: I am sure not I. 

I1.—For “the Church” may import in our language “the 
only true Church ;” and, perhaps, as some of you seem to make 
it, “the root and the ground of the Catholic.” And this I 
never did grant of the Roman Church, nor ever mean to do. 
But “a Church” can imply no more than that it is a member 
of the whole. And this I never did nor ever will deny, if it 
fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a “true 
Church,” I granted also; but not a “right,” as you impose 
upon me. For ens and verum, “being”’ and “ true,” are con- 
vertible one with another; and every thing that hath a 
being is truly that being which it is, in truth of substance. 
But this word “right” is not so used, but is referred 
more properly to perfection in conditions: and in this sense 
every thing that hath a true and real being is not, by and by, 
right im the conditions of it. A man that is most dishonest, 


° [Adversus hereticos sive heereses 
tum temporis grassantes scripturus 
Tertullianus, ] videns disputationibus 
nihil aut parum profici.—Pamelius in 
Summario, [preefixo] lib. (Tertullian. 
de preescript. adversus heretic. Op., 
p. 233. ed. Pamelii, Colon. 1617.] 

P (Hoe tibi, cum voles, manifestis- 
simum faciam, et comminui et] debi- 
litari generosam indolem, in istas 


argutias conjectam.—Senee. Epist. 
xlviii. [Op., p. 258. ed. Paris. 1607.] 

4 Here A. C. hath nothing to say, 
but that the Jesuit did not affirm, 
“That the Lady asked this question 
in this or any other precise form.” 
No? Why, the words preceding are the 
Jesuit’s own. Therefore, if these were 
not the Lady’s words, he wrongs her, 
not 1 him. 


No Acts xix. 
sure: it was some abuse in the disputants that frustrated 1” 


144 


A Church which recewes SS. and Sacraments, a True Church. 


ConrErENcE and unworthy the name—a very thief, if you will—is a true 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


man in the verity of his essence, as he is a creature endued 
with reason; for this none can steal from him, nor he from 
himself, but death: but he is not therefore a right or an 
upright man. AndaChurch that is exceeding corrupt, both 
in manners and doctrine, and so a dishonour to the name, 
is yet a true Church in the verity of essence ; as a Church is 
a company of men which profess the faith of Christ, and are 
baptized into His name: but yet it is not therefore a “ right” 
Church, either im doctrme or manners. It may be you meant 
cunningly to slip in this word “right,’ that I might at 
unawares grant it orthodox. But I was not so to be caught ; 
for I know well that orthodox Christians are “keepers of 
integrity, and followers of right things” (so 8. Augustine ἢ), 
of which the Church of Rome at this day is neither. In 
this sense, then, no “right,” that is, no “ orthodox” Church 
at Rome. 

III.—And yet no news it is, that I granted the Roman 
Church to be a true Church. For so much very learned 
Protestants have acknowledged before me, and the truth 
cannot deny it.6 For that Church which receives the Scrip- 
ture as a rule of faith, though but as a partial and imperfect 
rule, and both the sacraments as instrumental causes and 
seals of grace, though they add more and misuse these, yet 
cannot but be a true Church in essence. How it is in manners 
and doctrine, I would you would look to it with a single eye ; 


r [Que cum ita sint, neque in con- 
fusione paganorum, neque in purga- 
mentis hereticorum,neque in languore 
schismaticorum, neque in ccecitate 
Judeorum, quzerenda est religio, sed 
apud eos solos, qui Christiani, catho- 
lici, vel orthodoxi nominantur, id est, ] 
integritatis custodes, et recta sectantes. 
—{S. Augustin. lib. ] de vera religione, 
eap.v. [Op., tom. i. col. 751. D.] 

s [“ Notwithstanding, so far as law- 
fully we may,we have held, and do hold, 
fellowship with them,(of the Church of 
Rome,) ... touching those main parts 
of Christian truth wherein they con- 
stantly persist, we gladly acknowledge 
them to be of the family of Jesus 
Christ,” &¢c.|-—Hooker, Eecl. Polit. 
B. iii. Ch. i. [Sect. 2. Works, vol. i. 
p. 438. ed. Keble. ]—[Ita etiam ] fallun- 
tur [utrique, tum] qui ecclesiam esse 


negant, quia papatus in ea est, [quam 
ii qui papatum affirmant HEcclesiam 
ipsam esse. ]|—Junius, de Ecclesia, lib. 
[singular.] cap. xvii. [de Ecclesia Ro- 
mana. Op., tom. ii. col. 1020. ed. Ge- 
ney. 1613.|—And Reynolds, Thes. y. 
negat tantum [Romanam ecclesiam] 
esse Catholicam, vel sanum membrum 
{ Catholicee.|—[Johan. Rainoldi Sex 
Theses de SS. et Ecclesia: Thes. v. in 
tit. p. 123. ed. Lond. 1602.] Nay, the 
very Separatists grant it: Fr. John- 
son, in his treatise called, A Chris- 
tian Plea, printed 1617, p. 123, &e. 
[‘‘ How can we soundly defend and 
retain the visible baptism received in 
the Church of Rome. ... if we do not 
accordingly acknowledge the Church 
of Rome to be a visible Church and 
the people of God . .. a visible Church, 
I say, though miserably corrupted, &c.” 


Whether the Churches in communion with Rome are the Cath. Church? 145 


“for if piety and a peaceable mind be not joined to a good ὅποῖτον 

understanding, nothing can be known in these great things.” ' ee 
IV.—Here A.C. tells us, “ That the Jesuit doth not say A.C. p.53. 

that the Lady asked this question in this or any other precise 

form of words; but saith, the Jesuit is sure her desire was 

to know of me, whether I would grant the Roman Church 

to be the right Church?” And how was the Jesuit sure the 

Lady desired to hear this from me? Why, A.C. tells us 

that too: for he adds, “That the Jesuit had particularly A.C. p. 54. 

spoken with her before, and wished her to msist upon that 

point.” Where you may see, and it is fit the Clergy of 

England should consider with what cunning adversaries they 

have to deal, who can find a way to prepare their disciples, 

and instruct them beforehand upon what points to insist," 

that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts 

and consciences, which should never come there. And this 

once known, I hope they will the better provide against it. 

But A.C. goes on, and tells us, “That certainly by my A.C. p. 54. 

answer, the Lady’s desire must needs be to hear from me, 

not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church, ὅσο. ; 

but whether I would grant that there is but one Holy Catholic 

Church, and whether the Roman Church—that is, not only 

that which is in the city or diocese of Rome, but all that 

agreed with it—be not it.” About “a Church,” and “the 

Church,” I have said enough before,* and shall not repeat. 

Nor is there any need I should; for A.C. would have it 

“The Church, the one, holy, Catholic Church.” But this 

cannot be granted, take the Roman Church in what sense 

they please, in city, or diocese, or all that agree with it. 

Yet, howsoever, before I leave this, I must acquaint the 

reader with a perfect Jesuitism. In all the primitive times 

of the Church, a man, or a family, or a national Church, 


A Christian Plea conteyning three 
Treatises. 1. The first touching the 
Anabaptists, and others mainteyning 
some like errors with them, ὅθ. Made 
by Francis Johnson, Pastour of the 
auncient English Church now sojourn- 
ing at Amsterdam in the Lowe Coun- 
treyes. (No place.) Printed in the 
year of our Lord, 1617. ] 

Ὁ Si tamen bono ingenio pietas et 
pax quedam mentis accedat, sine qua 
de tantis rebus nihil prorsus intelligi 


VOL. II.—LAUD. 


potest.—S. Augustin. lib. de util. cred. 
cap. xviii. [Op., tom. viii. col. 70. D.] 

« And after A.C. saith again, p. 54, 
“that the Lady did not ask the ques- 
tion, as if she meant to be satisfied 
with hearing what I said,” so belike 
they take caution beforehand for that 
too, that whatever we say, unless we 
grant what they would have, their 
proselytes shall not be satisfied with 
it 


Sect. xx. No. 1. [ubi sup. p. 143.] 
L 


146 


The Church of Rome, in one sense, was, 


Conrerenor were accounted right and orthodox, as they agreed with the 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


A.C. p. 54. 


Catholic Church; but the Catholic was never then measured 
or judged by man, family, or nation. But now, in the 
Jesuit’s new school, the one Holy Catholic Church must be 
measured by that which is in the city or diocese of Rome, 
or of them which agreed with it, and not Rome by the 
Catholic. For so A. C. says expressly, “ The Lady would 
know of me, not whether that were the Catholic Church to 
which Rome agreed, but whether that were not the Holy 
Catholic Church, which agreed with Rome.” So upon the 
matter, belike the Christian faith was committed to the cus- 
tody of the Roman, not of the Catholic, Church ; and a man 
cannot agree with the Cathoiic Church of Christ, in this new 
doctrine of A. C., unless he agree with the Church of Rome: 
but if he agree with that, all is safe, and he is as orthodox 
as he need be. 

V.—But A.C. is yet troubled about the form of the Lady’s 
question: and he will not have it, “That she desired to 
know, whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the 
right Church ?” though these be her words, according to the 
Jesuit’s own setting down; but he thinks the question was, 
“ Whether the Church of Rome was not the right Church ?” 
Not “be not,”? but “ was not.” “ Was not ?” that is, “ was 
not once or in time past the right Church, before Luther 
and others made a breach from it?” Why truly A. C. need 
not have troubled himself half so much about this. For 


y And though Stapleton, to magnify 
the Church of Rome, is pleased to say, 
[Sola Romana Ecclesia adeo est catho- 
lica, ut] apud veteres pro eodem ha- 
bita fuerit Romana Ecclesia, [fides, 
societas,] et catholica ecclesia, { fides, 
societas:] yet he is so modest as to 
give this reason of it: [Obtinuit au- 
tem apud veteres hic loquendi modus, 
non quia solius urbis aut dicecesis 
Romane populus ecclesiam catholicam 
constituit, (est enim particularis et pars 
catholicze,) sed] quia ejus communio 
erat evidenter et certissime cum tota 
[ecclesia] catholica—Relect. Controv. 
{[Controy.] 1. [de ecclesia in se,] 
Q{uest.] v. A[rt.] 3. [Op., tom. i. 
p. 594. B. C.] Lo, the communion 
of the Roman was then with the Ca- 
tholie Church, not of the Catholic with 
it. And §, Cyprian employed his 


legates, Caldonius and Fortunatus, 
not to bring the Catholic Church to 
the communion of Rome, but Rome 
to the Catholic Church: [Quod servis 
Dei et maxime sacerdotibus justis et 
pacificis congruebat, frater carissime, 
miseramus nuper collegas nostros Cal- 
donium et Fortunatum, ut non tantum 
persuasione literarum nostrarum, sed 
preesentia sua et consilio omnium 
vestrum eniterentur, quantum possent, 
et] elaborarent, ut ad catholicze eccle- 
sie unitatem scissi corporis membra 
componerent, [et Christianz caritatis 
vinculo copularent.] Now the mem- 
bers of this rent and torn body were 
they of Rome, then in an open schism 
between Cornelius and Novatian.— 
S. Cyprian. lib. ii. Epist. 10. [ad Cor- 
nelium, Epist. xlii. Op., p. 56. ed, 
Benedict. ] 


and, in one sense, was not, a “ Right Church” before the Reformation. 147 


let him take his choice: it shall be all one to me, whether 
the question were asked by “be,” or by “was.” For the 
Church of Rome neither “is” nor “ was” the right Church, 
as the Lady desired to hear. A particular Church it is, and 
was, and in some times right, and in some times wrong ; and. 
then in some things right, and in some things wrong: but 
“the right Church,” or “the Holy Catholic Church,” it never 
was, nor ever can be; and, therefore, was not such before 
Luther and others either left it, or were thrust from it. 
A “particular” Church it was; but then A.C. is not distinct 
enough here neither. For the Church of Rome both was, 
and was not, a “right” or orthodox Church, before Luther 
made a breach from it. For the word anie, “ before,” may 
look upon Rome and that Church a great way off, or long 
before; and then in the prime times of it, it was a most 
“right” and orthodox Church. But it may look also nearer 
home, and upon the immediate times before Luther, or some 
ages before that ; and then in those times Rome was a cor- 


SECTION 


rupt and a tainted Church, far from being right.’ 


z Cum infiniti abusus, schismata 
quoque et heereses, per totum nunc 
Christianum orbem invaleseant, Eecle- 
siam Dei legitima indigere reforma- 
tione nemini non apertum erit.—Petri 
de Alliaco, Card Cameracensis, lib. 
[tractat.] de Reformatione Kcclesiz, 
[oblat. in Concil. Constant. an. 141%. 
apud J. Gerson. Op., tom. ii. col. 903, et 
seqq.ed. Dupin. Antw. 1706. Theabove 
words do not occur in this Tract as 
printed in Gerson’s work: they are to be 
found, in an editorial Conclusion, by O. 
Gratius, apud Fasciculum rerum expe- 
tendarum ac fugiendarum, per Orthui- 
num Gratium collect. fol. ecili.—ceviii. 
ed. Colon. 1535. Similar expressions 
occur throughout the Tract itself: 
Summopere vigilandum est circa re- 
formationem ecclesiaz.—col. 904. A. 
apud Gerson.—Propter defectum ce- 
lebrationis conciliorum, Ecclesia in 
diversa schismata et alia innumerabilia 
mala, forte etiam ad heereses disponen- 
tia, proh dolor! lapsa sit, sicut expe- 
rientia docet.—Ibid. col. 905. B.— 
Reformatio totius corporis Ecclesize, et 
particularis ecclesiz Romane, est de 
arduis pertinentibus ‘ad fidem : nam 
ejus generalis deformatio non medio- 
criter fidem tangit, et per consequens 
ejus reformatio.—Ibid. D.] And if 
schisms and heresies did then invade 
the whole Christian world, let A. Ὁ, 


And yet 


consider how Rome escaped free. And 
1 think Cameracensis was in this pro- 
phetical. For sixty years and more 
before Luther was born, and so before 
the great troubles which have since 
fallen upon all Christendom, he used 
these words in the book which himself 
delivered up in the Council of Con- 
stance: [Hsec autem Deus misericor- 
dissimus, qui solus ex malis bona 
novit elicere, ideo permittere creden- 
dus est, ut eorum occasione Ecclesia 
sua in melius reformetur. Quod] nisi 
celeriter fiat, audeo dicere quod licet 
magna sint que videmus, tamen brevi 
incomparabiliter majora videbimus, et 
post ista tonitrua tam horrenda, alia 
[horribiliora in proximo] audiemus.— 
| Ibid. col. 905. A.| Andit will hardly 
sink into any man’s judgment that so 
great a man as Pet. de Alliaco was in 
that Church, should speak thus, if he 
did not see some errors in the doctrine 
of that Church, as well as in manners. 
Nay, Cassander, though he lived and 
died in the communion of the Church 
of Rome, yet found fault with some 
of her doctrines. Consultat. Artic. 
xxi. xxii. [De cultu Sanctorum... 
in quibus omnibus haud Jeves abusus 
et superstitiones irrepsisse negari non 
potest.—P. 964.—Alter error est quod 
homines.... unico illo advocationis 
Christi officio obscurato, sanctos atque 


Tone 


148 


The Ch. of Rome though it were once right has now embraced Error. 


Coyrerencn both these times before Luther made his breach. So here 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


A.C. p. 54. 


Matt. xiii. 
25. 


A.C. should have been more distinct. For the word 
“before” includes the whole time before Luther, in part of 
which time that Church of Rome was right, and in other 
part whereof it was wrong. But A. C. adds yet, “That 1 
suspected the Lady would infer, if once that Church were 
right, what hmdered it now to be? since that did not 
depart from the Protestant Church, but the Protestant Church 
from it.” Truly, I neither suspected the inference would 
be made, nor fear it when it is made. For it is no news that 
any particular Church, Roman as well as another, may once 
have been right, and afterwards wrong, and in far worse case. 
And so it was in Rome after “the enemy had sowed tares 
among the wheat.” But whether these tares were sown 
while their Bishops slept, or whether they themselves* did 
not help to sow them, is too large a disquisition for this 
place. So though it were once right, yet the tares which 
grow thick in it, are the cause why it is not so now. And 
then, though that Church did not depart from the Protest- 
ants’ Church, yet if it gave great and just cause for the 
Protestant Church to depart from the errors of it, while it in 


imprimis Virginem Matrem in Illius 
locum substituerunt.—P. 970. And in 
the following sections on the venera- 
tion of Relics, pp. 972, 973; the eul- 
tus of Images, pp. 974—981; the 
administration of the Eucharist under 
both kinds, &c. pp. 981—984; Ex- 
treme Unction, pp. 985, 986. Op., 
ed. Paris. 1616.] And Pope Julius 
the Third professed at Bononia, [Con- 
cilium interim Bononiam translatum, 
paulo post suspensum, et mortuo 
Paulo intermissnm, successor Julius 
111. redauspicatus est, Bononiz antea 
Sessione XI. palam _professus,] in 
Sacramentorum Ecclesize ministerium 
innumerabiles abusus irrepsisse. — 
[Claud.] Espenczeus in [Epist. ad] 
Titum, cap. 1. [Op., p. 480. col. 2. 
A. ed. Paris. 1619.] And yet he was 
one of the bishops, nay the chief 
legate, in the Council of Trent. 

ἃ For A. C. knows well what strange 
doctrines are charged upon some 
popes. And all Bellarmine’s labour, 
though great and full of art, is not 
able to wash them clean. Bellarm. de 
Rom. Pont. lib. iv. capp. 8—14. [Op., 
tom. i. coll. 819—856. In these chap- 
ters the errors charged against several 


popes are examined at full-] Et papas 
quosdam graves errores seminasse in 
ecclesia Christi luce clarius est. Et 
probaturaJacob.Almain.Opuse.deA uc- 
toritat. Eeclesize, cap. 10, [of which the 
conclusion is: Ex his manifeste sequi- 
tur, Papam non solum errore personali, 
sed et errore judiciali errare posse in 
materia fidei, sicut et in aliis materiis. 
—Tractat. de Auctoritat. Eccles. et 
concil. general. adversus Thom. de 
Vio. apud Jo. Gerson. Op., tom. ii. 
col. 1005. A.] And Cassander speaks 
it out more plainly: [Quod autem Ber- 
nardus addit : Hzec omnia in variam 
transire superstitionem, in quam non 
inciderent, si rationi adorationis ac 
veri cultus attenderent, aut, si igno- 
rant, informationem humiliter acci- 
perent, recte quidem dicitur: sed] uti- 
nam illi (he speaks of the bishops and 
rectors in the Roman Church), a quibus 
heee informatio accipienda esset, non 
ipsi harum superstitionum auctores 
essent ; vel certe eas in animis homi- 
num simplicium aliquando queestus 
causa nutrirent.—Cassand. Consultat. 
Art. 21. [de imaginib.] versus fin. 
[pp. 979, 980.] 


W ho are to blame for the present Division in the Church ? 149 


some particulars departed from the truth of Christ, it comes ὅβοτιον 
all to one for this particular, that the Roman Church, which 7a 
was once right, is now become wrong, by embracing super- 

stition and error. 


¥, Farther he* confessed,’ That Protestants had made a. ¢. p.55. 


sae ᾿ 1 ranted 
a rent and? division from it. ls AO] 


* [The Chaplain having told us that the %. could be heartily angry, saith : * [or - 
<The %. never said nor thought, that Protestants made this rent. The cause ** C.] 
of the schism is yours, Xc.” I answer that the Jesuit is sure, that whatsoever 
the 88. thought, which maybe was as the Chaplain now expresseth, to wit, that 
we had given cause to the Protestants to do as they did: yet he did say, either 
iisdem, or equipollentibus, verbis, just as isin the Relation. For the Jesuit 
did in fresh memory take special notice of this passage in regard it concerned 
a most important point, which, being urged by him in the first Conference 
against D. White, in these words, “ Why did you make a schism from us ἢ 
Why do you perseente us?” the Doctor slipped over that of the schism without 
denying it to have been made by them, or laying the cause to us, and only 
answered to the other, saying, “ We do not persecute you for religion.” The 
Jesuit therefore, I say, did, as he had reason, take special notice in fresh 
memory, and is sure he related, at least in sense, just as was uttered by the 18. 

And I ask the Chaplain, what reason the %. had to discourse so long as he 
did, endeavouring to show what reason Protestants had to make that rent or 
division, or, if he liked not these words, that discession, to use Calvin’s phrase, 
or departure, not only from the Church of Rome, but also as Calvin (lib. Epist. 
Ep. 141.) confesseth, a toto mundo, from the whole world, if he had not, as the 
Jesuit related, confessed that Protestants, being once members of the Roman 
Church, separated themselves from it, as the world knows they did, when they 
got the name of Protestants, for protesting against it. Now, for the Chaplain’s 
ascribing the cause of the schism to us, in that by excommunication we thrust 
them from us, he must remember, that before this they had divided themselves 
by obstinate holding and teaching opinions contrary to the Roman faith, and 
practice of the Church, which in 8. Bernard’s judgment (Serm. de Resur.) is 
most great pride. Que major superbia, &e. What greater pride than that one 
man, Luther for example, should prefer his judgment, not only before a 
thousand Austins, and Cyprians, and King Harry-churches, but before the 
whole congregation of all Christian churches in the world? which in 8. Austin’s 
judgment is most insolent madness: for contra id disputare &c., to dispute 
against that which the universal Church doth practice, is, saith 8. Austin, most 
insolent madness. : 

What then? Isit, not only by way of doubtful disputation, but by solemn 
and public protestation to condemn the general practice of the Church as 
superstitious, and the doctrine as erroneous in faith, yea as heretical and even 
Antichristian? All this considered, the %. hath no cause “to be heartily 
angry,” either with your Jesuit for relating, or with himself for granting, 
Protestants to have made a rent or division from the Roman Church, but might 
with a safe conscience yet further grant, as one did,—was it not he?—to an 
honourable person, “That it was ill done of those who did first make the 
separation.” Which is not true, both in regard there can be no just cause to 
make a schism and division from the whole Church, for the whole Church 
cannot universally err in doctrine of faith, and other just cause there is none. 
And also for that those who first made the separation, (Luther and his 
associates,) gave the first cause in manner aforesaid to the Roman Church to 
excommunicate them, as by our Saviour’s warrant she might, when they would 
“not hear the Church,” which did both at first seek to recall them from their 
novel opinions, and after their breach did permit, yea invite them publicly 
with safe conduct to Rome, to a General Council, and freely to speak what they 
could for themselyes. And I make no doubt, so far is the Roman Church 
from being cause of continuance of the schisms, or hindrance of re-union, that 
it would yet, if any hope may be given that Protestants will sincerely seek 


150 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FISHER. 


Matt. xviii. 
T. 


A.C. pp.55, 


56. 


The Protestants, as a whole, did not depart from Rome. 


nothing but truth and peace, give them a free hearing with most ample and 
safe conduct: which is more than even we English Catholics could obtain, 
although we have made offers divers times to come to public dispute ; first in 
Queen Elizabeth’s days, and also in his Majesty’s which now is, only requiring 
the Prince’s word for our safety, and equality of conditions of the dispute. 
Unto which offer our adversaries never did, nor ever will, give good answer. 
As one saith: Honestwm responsum nullum dabunt preter unum quod nun- 
quam dabunt ; Regina (Rex) spondet : Advola—Camp. in rat. Acad. red.— 
A. C. marg. note to p. 55.] 

%. I.—I confess I could here be heartily angry, but that 
T have resolved, in handling matters of religion, to leave all 
gall out of my ink; for I never granted that the Roman 
Church either is, or was, the right Church. It is too true 
indeed, that there is a miserable rent in the Church, and 
T make no question but the best men do most bemoan it ;° 
nor is he a Christian, that would not have unity, might he 
have it with truth. But I never said, nor thought, “that the 
Protestants made this rent.”? The cause of the schism is 
yours: for you thrust us from you, because we called for 
truth and redress of abuses. For a schism“ must needs be 
theirs, whose the cause of it is. The woe runs full out of 
the mouth of Christ, ever against “him that gives the 
offence ;” not against him that takes it, ever. But you have, 
by this carriage, given me just cause, never to treat with you 
or your like, but before a judge or a jury. 

II.—But here A. C. tells me, “1 had no cause to be angry, 
either with the Jesuit or myself. Not with the Jesuit, for he 
writ down my words in fresh memory, and upon special notice 


b [Quamobrem vellem mihi isti 


docuerat ?]|—Lucif. [Calaritan.] libello 
dicerent, in quo genere ponant He- 


de non conveniendo cum _ heereticis. 


clesize Catholics, quem putant, erro- 
rem. Si in primo,] grave omnino 
crimen : sed defensionem longinquam 
non requirit ; satis est enim negare 
[ita nos intelligere, ut illi cum inve- 
huntur existimant:] sicut pro He- 
clesia olim [argumentabatur], 5. Au- 
gustinus, in lib. de util. credendi, cap. 
v. [Op., tom. viii. col. 53. A.] 

© (Quemadmodum ergo nobis in- 
visibilem, solius Dei conspicuam 
Ecclesiam credere necesse est; ita] 
hane, que respectu hominum Ecclesia 
dicitur, observare, ejusque communio- 
nem colere debemus.—Calvin. Instit. 
[lib. iv.] cap. 1. [Op., tom. viii. p. 272. ] 

4 Recte [igitur] scias nos fecisse, 
recedendo a yobis [Deo odibilibus; 
quomodo etenim nos in ccetu vestro 
omnibus facinoribus infecto manere, 
et non vos pestes ac lues fugere 


[Max. Bibl. Patrum, tom. iv. p. 222. 
E. ed. Lugd. 1677.] He speaks of the 
Arians, and 1 shall not compare you 
with them, nor give any offence that 
way. I shall only draw the general 
argument from it, thus: Ifthe ortho- 
dox did well in departing from the 
Arians, then the schism was to be 
imputed to the Arians; although 
the orthodox did not depart from 
them. Otherwise if the orthodox had 
been guilty of the schism, he could 
not have said, recte scias nos fecisse 
recedendo. For it cannot be that aman 
should do well in making a schism. 
There may be therefore a necessary 
separation, which yet incurs not the 
blame of schism; and that is, when 
doctrines are taught contrary to the 
Catholic faith. 


The Jesuit quotes Laud unfairly. 


151 


taken of the passage, and that I did say either ésdem, or  Sxcrton 


equipollentibus, verbis, ‘either in these or equivalent words,’ 
That the Protestants did make the rent or division from the 
Roman Church.” What, did the Jesuit set down my words 
in fresh memory, and upon special notice taken, and were 
they so few as these, “The Protestants did make the 
schism;’’ and yet was his memory so short, that he cannot 
tell, whether I uttered this tisdem, or equipollentibus, verbis ὃ 


XXI. 


Well, I would A. C. and his fellows would leave this art of A.C. p.57. 


theirs, and in Conferences, which they are so ready to call 
for, impose no more upon other men than they utter. And 
you may observe too, that after all this full assertion, That I 
spake this iisdem, or equipollentibus verbis, A. C. concludes 


thus: “The Jesuit took special notice in fresh memory, and A.C. p. 55. 


is sure he related, at least in sense, just as it was uttered.” 
What is this, “at least in sense just as it was uttered??? Do 
not these two interfere, and shew the Jesuit to be upon his 
shuffling pace? For if it were “just as it was uttered,” then 
it was in the very form of words too, not in “sense” only. 
And if it were but “at least in sense,” then when A. C. hath 
made the most of it, it was not “just as it was uttered.” 
Besides, “at least in sense,” doth not tell us in whose sense 
it was. For if A.C. mean the Jesuit’s sense of it, he may 
make what sense he pleases of his own words; but he must 
impose no sense of his upon my words. But as he must 
leave my words to myself, so when my words are uttered or 
written, he must leave their sense either to me, or to that 
genuine construction which an ingenuous reader can make 
of them. And what my words of grant were, I have before 
expressed, and their sense too. 


III.—“ Not with myself:” that is the next. For A. Ὁ. A.C. p.56. 


says, “It is truth, and that the world knows it, that the 
Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome, and got 
the name of Protestants, by protesting against it.” No, 
A.C., by your leave, this is not truth neither ; and therefore 
I had reason to be angry with myself, had I granted it. 
For, first, the Protestants did not depart: for departure is 
voluntary, so was not theirs. I say, not theirs, taking their 
whole body and cause together. For that some among them 
were peevish, and some ignorantly zealous, is neither to be 


152 


CONFERENCE 
WITH 
Fisumr. 


A.C. p. 56. 


Sense in which the Reformation was a Protestation. 


doubted, nor is there danger in confessing it. Your body is 
not so perfect, | wot well, but that many amongst you are 
as pettish, and as ignorantly zealous, as any of ours. You 
must not suffer for these, nor we for those ; nor should the 
Church of Christ for either. Next, the Protestants did not 
get that name by protesting against the Church of Rome, 
but by protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) 
against her errors and superstitions. Do you but remove 
them from the Church of Rome, and our Protestation is 
ended, and the separation too. Nor is Protestation itself 
such an unheard of thing in the very heart of religion. For 
the sacraments both of the Old and New Testaments are 
called by your own school, “visible signs protesting the faith.” 
Now if the sacraments be protestantia, “signs protesting,” 
why may not men also, and without all offence, be called 
Protestants, since by receiving the true sacraments, and by 
refusing them which are corrupted, they do but protest the 
sincerity of their faith against that doctrinal corruption, which 
hath invaded the great sacrament of the Eucharist, and other 
parts of religion? Especially, since they are men,! which must 
protest their faith by these visible signs and sacraments. 
IV.—Bnt A.C. goes on, and will needs have it, that the 
Protestants were the cause of the schism. “For,” saith he, 
“though the Church of Rome did thrust them from her by 
excommunication, yet they had first divided themselves by 
obstinate holding and teaching opinions contrary to the 
Roman faith, and practice of the Church; which to do, 
S. Bernard thinks is pride, and 8. Augustine madness.” 
So then, in his opinion, First, excommunication on their 
part was not the prime cause of this division; but the “ hold- 
ing and teaching of contrary opinions.” Why, but then in 


protestation, therefore, was not simply 
against the Roman Church, but 


© Conventus ordinum Imperii Spira 
celebratur. In quo decretum factum, 


ut Edictum Wormatiense observetur 
contra Novatores, (ste appellare 
placuit), et ut omnia in integrum 
restituantur, (ef sic nulla omnino 
reformatio.) Contra hoe Edietum 
[| Elector Johannes et Landgravius et 
alii] die 16. Aprilis a.p. 1629, so- 
lenniter protestantur: hine ortum 
pervulgatum illud Protestantium 
nomen. — Se{thi] Calvisii [opus] 
Chron| ologicum,] ad An. 1529. [pp. 
920, 921, ed. Francof. 1685.] This 


against the edict, which was for the 
restoring of all things to their former 
estate, without any reformation. 

f {Nullus autem sanctificari potest 
post peccatum, nisi per Christum..... 
et ideo oportebat, ante Christi adven- 
tum esse queedam signa invisibilia, ] 
quibus homo fidem suam_ protesta- 
retur [de futuro Salvatoris adventu. ] 
—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. iii. 
Qfuaest.] xi. A[rt.] 3. [in respons. | 


S. Bernard, by “the whole Congregation,” means a particular Church. 153 


my opinion, that “holding and teaching was” not the prime  Szcrron 
cause neither, but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome, — ~~" — 
which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary. So 

the prime cause was theirs still. Secondly, A. C.’s words 

are very considerable. For he charges the Protestants to 

be the authors of the schism, for “obstinate holdimg and 
teaching contrary opinions.” To what, I pray? Why, to the 

Roman faith. To the Roman faith? It was wont to be the 
Christian faith, to which contrary opinions were so dangerous 

to the maintainers. But all is Roman now with A. C. and 

the Jesuit. And then to countenance the business, 8. 
Bernard and 8. Augustine are brought in; whereas neither 

of them speak of the Roman, and S. Bernard perhaps 
neither of the Catholic nor the Roman, but of a particular, 
Church or congregation. Or if he speak of the Catholic, of 

the Roman he certainly doth not. His words are, Que 

major superbia, &c. “‘ What greater pride, than that one man 

should prefer his judgment before the whole congregation of 

all the Christian churches in the world?” So A. C. as! out '[as.... 
of S. Bernard. But S. Bernard not so." For these last πα 
words, “of all the Christian churches in the world,” are not 1673, and 
in 8. Bernard. And whether tote congregationi imply more 

in that place than a particular Church, is not very manifest. 

Nay, I think it is plain, that he speaks both of, and to, that 
particular congregation, to which he was then preaching. 

And I believe A. C. will not easily find where fota congre- 

gratio, “the whole congregation,” is used in 8S. Bernard, or 

any other of the Fathers, for the whole Catholic Church of 

Christ. And howsoever the meaning of 8. Bernard be, it is 


s I know Bellarmine, [de Rom. 
Pont. lib. iv. cap. 4. § 3.] quotes 
S. Jerome: Scito Romanam fidem, 
&c. [ubi] supra, Sect. 111, No. 9. [p. 9. 
note "1 But there 8. Jerome doth 
not call it Hidem Romanam, as if 
Fides Romana and Fides Catholica 


-were convertible; but he speaks of it 


tz the concrete, Romana Fides, 1. 6. 


~ Romanorum Fides, que laudata fuit 


ab <Apostolo, &c. Rom. i. 8.—S. 
Hieron. Apol. cont. Ruffin. lib. iii. 
[Op., tom. iv. par. ii. col. 449. ed. 
Benedict.] That is, that faith which 
was then at Rome when S. Paul com- 
mended it. But the Apostle’s com- 
mending of it in the Romans at one 


time, passes no deed of assurance that 
it shall continue worthy of com- 
mendations among the Romans 
through all times. 

h [Hi sunt unitatis divisores, ini- 
mici pacis, charitatis expertes, vani- 
tate tumentes, placentes sibi, οὗ magni 
in oculis suis, ignorantes Dei justi- 
tiam, et sua volentes constituere. Ht] 
quee major superbia, quam ut unus 
homo toti congregationi judicium 
suum preferat; tanquam ipse solus 
habeat spiritum Dei?  [idololatrize 
scelus est non acquiescere, et quasi 
peceatum ariolandi repugnare.|—S. 
Bernard. Serm. iii. de Resurrect. 
(fol. 35. col. 2. 1). ed. Paris. 1551.] 


154 


S. Augustine spoke of the Catholic, not the Roman, Church. 


Coxrerence one thing for a private man, judicium suum preferre, to 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


A.C. p. 56. 


prefer and so follow his private judgment before the whole 
congregation, which is indeed /epra proprit consilii, as 
S. Bernard calls it, “the proud leprosy of the private spirit ;” 
and quite another thing for an intelligent man, and in some 
things unsatisfied, modestly to propose his doubts even to 
the Catholic Church. And much more may a whole national 
Church, nay, the whole body of the Protestants, do it. And 
for S. Augustine, the place alleged out of him is a known place ; 
and he speaks indeed of the whole Catholic Church; and 
he says,‘ and he says it truly, “It is a part of most insolent 
madness for any man to dispute, whether that be to be done, 
which is usually done in, and through, the whole Catholic 
Church of Christ.”? Where, first, here is not a word of the 
Roman Church, but of that which is tota per orbem, “all 
over the world,’ Catholic, which Rome never yet was. 
Secondly, A. C. applies this to the Roman faith, whereas 
S. Augustine speaks there expressly of the rites and cere- 
monies of the Church, and particularly about the manner 
of offering upon Maundy-Thursday,* whether it be in the 
morning, or after supper, or both. Thirdly, it 15 manifest 
by the words themselves, that S. Augustine speaks of no 
matter of faith there, Roman nor Catholic. For frequentat, 
and faciendum, are for “things done, and to be done,”! not 





i (Prima ergo inquisitio tua, quam 
in commonitorio tuo posuisti, ex quo 
trium istorum generum sit, attende. 
Queeris enim his verbis: Quid per 
quintam feriam ultime hebdomadis 
Quadragesime fieri debeat, an offeren- 
dum sit mane, et rursus post ccenam, 
propter illud quod dictum est, Simi- 
liter postquam canatum est: an 
jejunandum, et post coenam tantum- 
modo offerendum: an etiam jejunan- 
dum, et post oblationem, sicut facere 
solemus, coenandum? Ad hoc itaque ita 
respondeo, ut quid horum sit facien- 
dum, si divine Scripturee preescribit 
auctoritas, non sit dubitandum quin 
ita facere debeamus ut legimus, ut 
jam non quomodo faciendum, sed 
quomodo sacramentum intelligendum 
sit, disputemus.] Similiter etiam, si 
quid horum tota per orbem frequentat 
Eeclesia. Nam et hine quin ita 
faciendum sit disputare, insolen- 
tissimee insaniz est.—S. Augustin. 


Epist. exviii. cap. 5. [Hpist. liv. seu, 
ad inguisitiones Januarii, lib. i. Op., 
tom. ii. col. 126. B.] 

k Queeris quid per quintam feriam 
ultimz hebdomadis Quadragesimee 
fieri debeat, an offerendum sit mane ? 
&e.—S. Augustin. ibid. 

' Andso Bellarmine most expressly. 
But then he adds, [Secunda regula 
est: Quando universa Ecclesia aliquid 
servat, quod nemo constituere potuit, 
nisi Deus, quod tamen nusquam in- 
venitur scriptum, necesse est dicere, 
ab ipso Christo et Apostolis ejus tradi- 
tum. Ratio est similis superiori : 
nam] Ecclesia universa non solum 
non potest errare in credendo, sed nec 
in operando, ae preesertim in ritu et 
cultu divino: [recteque Augustinus 
Epist. 118. &c.] —[Bellarmin.] de 
verbo Dei, lib. iv. cap. 9. § 3. [Op., 
tom. i. col. 193. B.] And if this be 
true, what is it to Rome? 


That the whole Church cannot err in doctrine, all grant. 


155 


for things believed, or to be believed. So here is not one  gxorton 


word for the Roman faith in either of these places. And 
after this, I hope you will the less wonder at A. C.’s boldness. 
Lastly, a right sober man may, without the least touch of 
insolence or madness, dispute a business of religion with the 
Roman either Church or prelate, (as all men know Ivenzeus 
did with Victor,™) so it be with modesty, and for the finding 
out or confirming of truth, free from vanity and purposed 
opposition against even a particular church. But in any 
other way to dispute the whole Catholic Church, is just that 
which Κ΄. Augustine calls it, “imsolent madness.” 

V.—But now were it so, that the Church of Rome were 
orthodox in all things, yet the faith, by the Jesuit’s leave, is 
not simply to be called the Roman, but the Christian and the 


XXI. 


Catholic, faith. And yet A. C. will not understand this; but A.C. p. 56. 


Roman and Catholic, whether Church or faith, must be one 
and the same with him; and therefore infers, “that there 
can be no just cause to make a schism or division from the 
whole Church: for the whole Church cannot universally 
err in doctrine of faith.” That the “whole Church” cannot 
“universally ” err in the doctrine of faith, is most true; and 
it is granted by divers Protestants:" so you will but under- 


™ [φέρονται δὲ καὶ ai τούτων φωναὶ, 
πληκτικώτερον καθαπτομένων τοῦ Βίιτο- 
pos’ ἐν οἷς καὶ 6 Eipnvaios....7@ γε 
μὲν Βίκτορι προσηκόντως, ws μὴ ἄπο- 
κόπτοι ὕλας ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἀρχαίου 
ἔθους παράδοσιν ἐπιτηρούσας, πλεῖστα 
ἕτερα παραινεῖ, κ. τ. A.|—EHuseb. (Eccl. 
Hist.] lib. v. cap. 24. [apud Hist. Eccl. 
Script. tom. i. p. 245. ed. Reading. ] 
Ht, [ἕως ὁ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπος Βίκτωρ, 
ἅμετρα θερμανθεὶς, ἀκοινωνησίαν τοῖς 
ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατίταις 
ἀπέστειλεν" ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γενομένῳ Εἰρηναῖος 
.... τοῦ Βίκτορος δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς γενναίως 
κατέδραμεν, μεμψάμενος μὲν αὐτοῦ τὸν 
θερμότητα, κ. τ. A.| —Socrat. Hist. 
Eccl. lib. v. cap. 22. [ibid. tom. ii. 
p. 292.] 

n Questio est, an Ecclesia totalis 
totaliter considerata, i.e. pro omnibus 
simul electis, dum sunt membra 
militantis Ecclesiz, possint errare, 
vel in tota fide, vel in gravi aliquo 
fidei puncto? Et respondemus simpli- 
citer, id esse impossibile.—{ Barthol.] 
Keckerm[an.] Syst. Theol. p. 387. 
edit. Hannovie, An. 1602.—{ Notan- 
dum autem est, multos ex nostris 


tempus terere, dum probant absolute 
ecclesiam non posse deficere; nam] 
Calvinus et ceeteri heeretici id conce- 
dunt: sed dicunt, intelligi debere de 
Keelesia invisibili. — Bellarmin. de 
Heel. milit. lib. 111, cap. 13. § 1. [Op., 
tom. li. col. 145. D.] But this exception 
of Bellarmine’s, that the Protestants, 
whom, out of his liberality, he calls 
heretics, speak of the invisible Church, 
is merely frivolous. For the Church 
of the elect is in the Church of them 
that are called, and the invisible 
Chureh in the visible. Therefore, if 
the whole Church of the elect cannot 
err in fundamentals, the whole visible 
Church, in which the same elect are, 
cannot err. Now that the invisible 
Church of the elect is in the visible, 
is manifest out of S. Augustine: Ipsa 
est Ecclesia qua intra sagenam 
Dominicam cum wmalis _piscibus 
natat, [a quibus corde semper et 
moribus separatur atque discedit, ut 
exhibeatur viro suo gloriosa, non 
habens maculam neque rugam.] — 
S. Augustin. Epist. xviii. [xciii. 
cap. 9. ad Vincentium Rogatistam, 


156 Separation from Rome justifiable when Rome separates from the Faith. 


Coyrrrence stand its not erring in absolute fundamental doctrines. And 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


1 [separate 
.... Edit. 
1686. ] 


therefore it is true also, that there can be no just cause 
to make a schism from the whole Church. But here is the 
Jesuit’s cunning. The whole Church, with him, is the Roman, 
and those parts of Christendom which subject themselves to 
the Roman bishop. All other parts of Christendom are in 
heresy and schism, and what A.C. pleases. Nay, soft! For 
another Church may separate from Rome, if Rome will 
separate from Christ. And so far as it separates from Him 
and the faith, so far may another Church sever' from it. 
And this is all that the learned Protestants do or can say : 
and I am sure all that ever the Church of England hath either 
said or done. And that the whole Church cannot err in 
doctrines absolutely fundamental aud necessary to all men’s 
salvation,—besides the authority of these Protestants, most 
of them being of prime rank,—seems to me to be clear by the 





Op., tom. ii. col. 245. D.]—[Et ips 
tribus sunt testimonium Israel, id est, 
per illas agnoscitur, quia erant] grana 
inter illam paleam, quando area, 
cum videretur, tota palea putabatur. 
—S. Augustin. [Enarr.] in Psalmum 
exxi, [4. Op., tom. ii. col. 1390. A.] 
And this is proved at large by Hooker, 
[“ And as those everlasting promises 
of love, mercy, and blessedness, belong 
to the mystical Church ; even so on 
the other hand, when we read of any 
duty which the Church of God is 
bound unto, the Church whom this 
doth concern is a sensibly known 
company. And this visible Church 
in like sort is but one,” &c.— Hooker, | 
Eccl. Polit. Book iii. ch. 1. 15. Works, 
vol. i. p. 427. ed. Keble.] For else 
the elect or invisible Church is tied 
to no duty of Christianity. For all 
such duties are required of the 
Chureh, as it is visible, and per- 
formed in the Church, as it is visible. 
And Dr. Field speaks as plainly : 
«TAs therefore] we hold it impossible 
the Church should ever by apostasy 
and misbelief wholly depart from God, 
{in proving whereof, Bellarmine (de 
Keel. mil. lib. iii. cap. 13.) confesseth 
his fellows have taken much needless 
pains, seeing no man of our profession 
thinketh any such thing;] so we hold 
that it never falleth into any heresy. 
So that he is as much to be blamed for 
idle and needless busying himself in 
proving, That the visible Church 


never falleth into heresy, which we 
most willingly grant.”—Field, of the 
Church. Book iv. chap. 2. [p. 345. 
ed. Oxford. 1635.]—“ Touching the 
Church, as it comprehendeth only the 
believers that now are, [and presently 
live in the world, it is most certain] 
and [agreed upon, that] in things 
necessary to be known [and believed | 
expressly [and distinctly, it never is 
ignorant, much less doth err.]’— 
[ Field.] ibid.—And Bellarmine him- 
self adds ; Calvinus [igitur] dicit 
istam propositionem, Mcclesia non 
potest errare, esse veram, si intelliga- 
tur cum duplici restrictione. Prima 
est, si non proponat dogmata extra 
Scripturam, ὅθ. (And indeed Calvin 
doth say so, lib. iv. cap. 8. § 13.) 
Secunda [restrictio] est, si intelligatur 
de sola Ecclesia universali, non autem 
{extendatur ad episcopos, qui sunt 
Ecclesia] representative, [ut nostri 
loquuntur.| — Bellarmin. de Eecl. 
milit. lib. iii. cap. 14. ὃ 2, 3. [Op., 
tom. ii. col. 148. C.] And I hope it is 
as good, and a better, restriction in 
Calvin, to say the Catholic Chureh 
cannot err, if it keep to the Scripture; 
than for Bellarmine to say, The 
particular Church of Rome cannot 
err, because of the Pope's residing 
there; or the Pope cannot err, if he 
keep his chair; which yet he affirms. 
—De Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 4. § 2. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 812. A. ubi sup. p. 4. 
note ἢ} 


The whole Militant Church is holy in degree, 157 


promise of Christ, “That the gates of hell shall not prevail Sxcrron 

against 10. Whereas most certain it is, that the gates of ee 
hell prevail very far against it, if the whole militant Church, Matt. xvi. 
universally taken, can err from, or in, the foundation ; but 
then this power of not erring is not to be conceived as if it 
were in the Church, primo et per se, “ originally or by any 
power it hath of itself:’ for the Church is constituted of 
men, and fumanum est errare, “all men can err.” But this 
power is in it, partly by the virtue of this promise of Christ : 
and partly by the matter which it teacheth, which is the 
unerring word of God, so plainly and manifestly delivered to 
her, as that it 15 not possible she should universally fall from 
it, or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to 
salvation. Besides, it would be well weighed, whether to 
believe or teach otherwise, will not impeach the article of 
the Creed concerning the “ Holy Catholic Church,” which we 
profess we believe. For the Holy Catholic Church, there 
spoken of, contains not only the whole militant Church on 
earth, but the whole triumphant also in heaven, Tor so 
S. Augustine® hath long since taught me. Now if the 
whole Catholic Church in this large extent be holy, then 
certainly the whole militant Church is holy, as well as the 
triumphant, though in a far lower degree; imasmuch as all 
sanctification, all holiness, is imperfect in this life,? as well 
in churches as in men. Holy then the whole militant 
Church is. For that which the Apostle speaks of Abraham, 
is true of the Church, which is a body collective made up of 
the spiritual seed of Abraham: “If the root be holy, so 
are the branches.” Well, then the whole militant Church is 
holy ; and so we believe. Why, but will it not follow then, 
that the whole militant Church cannot possibly err in the 


Rom. xi. 
16. 


° [Rectus itaque confessionis ordo 
poscebat, ut Trinitati subjungeretur] 
Keclesia, [tanquam habitatori domus 
sua, et Deo templum suum, et con- 
ditori civitas sua. Que] tota hic 
accipienda est, non solum ex parte 
qua veregrinatur in terris, [a solis 
ortu. usque ad occasum  laudans 
nomen Domini, et post captivitatem 
vetustatis cantans canticum novum :] 
verum etiam ex illa parte que in 
coelis [semper, ex quo condita est, 


cohesit Deo, nec ullum malum sui 
casus experta est.] — 8. Augustin. 
Enchiridion, cap. lvi. [Op., tom. vi. 
col. 217. D.] 

P [Nec quasi ex toto sanctus debet 
quis de altero judicare: quia scrip- 
tum est in Evangelio, Christo dicente, 
Nolite judicare, &c.: maxime cum] 
nemo ex toto sanctus [poterit inve- 
niri.—S.] Optat. [Milevit. de schism. 
Donatist.| contra Parmen. lib. vii. 
[cap. 2. Op., p. 103. ed. Dupin. ] 


158 


Correrence foundations of the faith ? 


WITH 


Fisuer. 


and cannot err in the foundation of Faith. 


That she may err in super- 
structures and deductions, and other by and unnecessary 
truths, if her curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond, 
or cause her to fall short, of her rule, no doubt need be 
made. But if she can err either from the foundation, or in 
it, she can be no longer holy, and that article of the Creed is 
gone. For if she can err quite from the foundation, then she 
is nor Holy, nor Church, but becomes an infidel. Now this 
cannot be: for all divines, ancient and modern, Romanists 
and Reformers, agree in this, That the whole militant Church 
of Christ cannot fall away mto general apostasy.1 And if 
she err in the foundation, that is, in some one or more 
fundamental points of faith, then she may be a church of 
Christ still, but not holy, but becomes heretical; and most 
certain it is that no assembly, be it never so general, of 
such heretics, is, or can be, holy." Other errors, that are of a 
meaner alloy, take not holiness from the Church ; but these, 
that are died in grain, cannot consist with holiness, of which 
faith in Christ is the very foundation. And therefore, if we 
will keep up our creed, the whole militant Church must be 
still holy. For if it be not so still, then there may be a 
time, that falswm may subesse fidet Catholice, “that false- 
hood,” and that in a high degree, in the very article, “ may 
be the subject of the Catholic faith;” which were no less than 
blasphemy to affirm: for we must still believe the “ Holy 


4 Dum Christus orat in excelso, 
navicula, id est Ecclesia, turbatur fluc- 
tibus in profundo. [Quia insurgunt 
fluctus, potest ipsa navicula turbari: } 
sed quia Christus orat, non potest 
mergi. [Naviculam quippe istam, 
fratres, Ecclesiam cogitate; turbulen- 
tum mare, hoe seculum. |]—[Pseudo- | 
δ. Augustin. Serm. de verbis Domini, 
xiv. cap. 2. [Eracl. Presbyt. Serm. in 
Appendie, ad 8. Augustin. Sermones: 
Serm. lxxii. de verbis Evang. Matth. 
xiv. 24. apud Op., 8. Augustin. tom. v. 
app. col. 132. B.|—Et Bellarmin. de 
Keel. milit. lib. iii. cap. 13. [Op., tom. ii. 
col. 145. D. ubisup. p. 155. note ™.] 
— [Ergo quoties audimus armari 
Christum eterna potestate, memi- 
nerimus hoc] preesidio Christi ful- 
ciri Eeclesiz perpetuitatem : ut 
inter turbulentas agitationes [quibus 
assidue vexatur, inter graves] et 
formidabiles motus, [qui innumeras 


clades minantur,] salva tamen maneat. 
—Calvin. Institut. lib. 11. cap. 15. 
§ 3. [Op., tom. viii. p. 127.]—[Denique] 
ipsa Symboli dispositione admone- 
mur perpetuam residere in Ecclesia 
Christi [delictorum gratiam: quod 
Ecclesize velut constitute] remissio 
peccatorum [adhue subjungitur.] — 
Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. cap. 1. § 27. 
[Op., tom. viii. p. 277.] Now remission 
of sins cannot be perpetual in the 
Church, if the Church itself be not 
perpetual. But the Church itself 
cannot be perpetual, if it fall away. 

τ (Ht non est Spiritus in eis. No- 
tandum quod et in isto capitulo, 
ventus et spiritus, uno apud Hebrzeos 
nomine appellatur ny] Spiritum 
[autem] sanctificationis [vocat, qui] 
in heereticorum mentibus non potest 
invenirii—S. Hieron. [lib. ii. Com- 
ment.] in Jerem. Proph. [cap.] x. 
[Op., tom. iii. col. 579.] 





They are to be blamed, who gave cause for the Separation. 


Catholic Church.” And if she be not still holy, then at that 
time when she is not so, we believe a falsehood under the 
article of the Catholic Faith. Therefore a very dangerous 
thing it is to cry out in general terms, that the whole 
Catholic militant Church can err, and not limit nor dis- 
tinguish in time: that it can err indeed, for ignorance it 
hath, and ignorance can err; but err it cannot, either by 
falling totally from the foundation, or by heretical error in 
it. For the holiness of the Church consists as much, if not 
more, in the verity of the faith, as in the integrity of man- 
ners taught and commanded in the doctrine of faith. 


159 


SECTION 
XXI. 


VI.—Now in this discourse, A. C. thmks he hath met A.C. p. 56. 


with me: for he tells me, “that I may not only safely 
grant, that Protestants made the division that is now in the 
Church, but further also ; and that with a safe confidence, as 
one did,—was it not you ?”” saith he,—“ That it was ill done 
of those who first made the separation.” Truly I do not 
now remember whether I said it or no. But, because A. C. 
shall have full satisfaction from me, and without any tergi- 
versation, if I did not say it then, I do say it now, and 
most true it is, That it was ill done of those, whoever they 
were, that first made the separation. But then A. C. must 
not understand me of actual only, but of causal, separation. 
For, as I said before,* the schism is theirs, whose the cause of 
it is. And he makes the separation, that gives the first just 
cause of it; not he, that makes an actual separation upon a 
just cause preceding. And this is so evident a truth, that 


A.C. cannot deny it ; for he says, it is “most true.” Neither A.C. p.56. 


can he deny it in this sense, in which I have expressed it ; 
for his very assertion against us, though false, is in these 
terms, That we gave the first cause. Therefore he must mean 
it of causal, not of actual, separation only. 


VII.—But then, A. C. goes on and tells us, “ that after A.C. p. 57. 


this breach was made, yet the Church of Rome was so kind 

and careful to seek the Protestants, that she invited them 

publicly with safe conduct to Rome, to a General Council, 

freely to speak what they could for themselves.” Indeed I 

think the Church of Rome did carefully seek the Protestants ; 

but I doubt it was to bring them within their net. And she 
5 Sect. xxi. No. 1. [ubi sup. p. 150.] 


160 


Not safe for Protestants to attend a General Council. 


Conrrrence invited them to Rome :—a very safe place, if you mark it, for 
them to come to, just as the lion in the apologue' invited 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


the fox to his own den. 
offered too ? 


Yea, but there was “ safe conduct” 
Yes, “conduct” perhaps, but not “safe;” or 


safe perhaps for going thither, but none for coming thence. 


Vestigia nulla retrorsum. 


Yea, but it should have been to a 


“General Council?” Perhaps so: but was the “conduct safe,” 
that was given for coming to a Council, which they call 


General, to some others before them? 


No sure: John Huss, 


and Jerome of Prague," burnt for all their safe conduct. And 
so long as the Jesuits* write and maintain, “that faith given 


τ Olim quod vulpes zegroto cauta 
Leoni 
Respondit, referam: Quia me vestigia 
terrent 
Omnia te adversum spectantia, nulla 
retrorsum. 

Horat. Epist. i. 1. [73.] ex disopo. 

ἃ Though I cannot justify all, which 
these two men said, yet, safe conduct 
being given, that public faith ought 
not to have been violated. 

x [His positis, queestio est, An 
quando Catholicus princeps, sive 
seecularis sit, sive ecclesiasticus, con- 
cedit heereticis salyum conductum 
libere veniendi et redeundi, sive id 
faciat jure communi sive speciali, 
debeat illi servari fidem, necne :] 
Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catho- 
lici. — Becanus, disput. theolog. de 
fide heereticis servanda, cap. xii. ὃ 5. 
fapud Op., tom. ii. opuscul. theologic. 
tom. ii. p. 17. F. ed. Paris. 1633.] 
But for all this brag of (Affirmant 
uno consensu omnes Catholici), Beca- 
nus shuffies pitifully, to defend the 
Council of Constance. For thus he 
argues: Aiunt Joanni Hussio fidem 
violatam esse. Nego. A quo violata 
est? an a patribus Concilii Constan- 


tiensis? At patres fidem illi non 
dederunt. An ab Imperatore Sigis- 
mundo? Is dedit quidem, sed non 
violavit. Imo, nec Patres. — Ibid. 


cap. xii. [§ 7. p. 17. D.] But all men 
know that the Emperor was used by 
the Fathers at Constance to bring 
Huss thither. Sigismundus Hus- 
sum Constantiam vocat, et missis 
literis publica fide cavet, mense Octob. 
Ann. 1414, &c. Edit. in 160.—Et 
etiamsi primo graviter tulit Hussi in- 
earcerationem, tamen cum dicerent 
fidem heereticis non esse servandam, 
non modo remisit offensionem, sed 


et primus acerbe in cum pronuncia- 
vit.—Ibid. This is a mockery. And 
Becanus’s argument is easily re- 
turned upon himself. For if the 
Fathers did it in cunning, that the 
Emperor should give safe conduct, 
which themselves meant not to keep, 
then they broke faith; and if the 
Emperor knew they would not keep 
it, then he himself broke faith, in 
giving a safe conduct which he knew 
to be invalid. And as easy it is to 
answer what Becanus adds to save that 
Council’s act, could I stay upon it. 
Fides heereticis data servanda non 
est, sicut nee tyrannis, piratis, et 
ceteris publicis preedonibus, &c.— 
Simancas, [Pacensis Episcop. de 
Catholic.] Instit. [lib.] Tit. xlvi. 
ὃ 52. [p. 365. ed. Rome, 1575.] And 
although Becanus in the place above 
cited (§ 13.) confidently denies, that 
the Fathers at Constance decreed, 
No faith to be kept with heretics; 
and cites the words of the Council 
(Sess. xix.) ; yet there the very words 
themselves have it thus: [Praesens 
sancta synodus ex quovis salyo con- 
ductu per imperatorem, reges, et alios 
seeculi principes, heereticis vel de 
heeresi diffamatis, concesso, nullum 
fidei Catholicee vel jurisdictioni Hc- 
clesiasticee preejudicium generari, vel 
impedimentum preesentari] posse [seu 
debere declarat, quo minus dicto 
salvo conductu non obstante, liceat 
judici competenti et ecclesiastico, de 
hujusmodi personarum erroribus in- 
quirere, et alias contra eos debite proce- 
dere,| eos[demque] punire, [quantum 
justitia suadebit, si suos errores re- 
vocare pertinaciter recusaverint, | eti- 
amsi de salvo conductu confisi ad 
locum yenerint judicii, [alias non 
venturi: nec sic promittentem, cum 


Who are to blame for continuance of the Division. 


is not to be kept with heretics ;” and the Church of Rome 
leaves this lewd doctrine uncensured, as it hath hitherto 
done, and no exception put in of force and violence; A. C. 
shall pardon us that we come not to Rome, nor within the 


reach of Roman power, what 


fecerit, quod in ipso est ex hoc in 
aliquo remansisse obligatum.—Apud 
Becanum, ibid. cap. xiii. p. 18. C.]— 
And much more plainly Simancas, Inst. 
Tit. xlvi. § 52. [ibid. p.366.] Jure igitur 
heeretici quidam gravissimo Concilii 
Constantiensis judicio legitima flam- 
ma concremati sunt, quamvis pro- 
missa illis securitas fuisset.—So they 
are not only Protestants, which charge 
the Council of Constance with this. 
Nor can Becanus say as he doth, 
Affirmant uno consensu omnes Catho- 
lici fidem heereticis servandam esse ; 
for Simaneas denies it. And he 
quotes others [Jacob. Menochius, 
Salomonius, Thom. Aquin.] for it, 
which A. C. would be loth should 
net be accounted Catholics. But 
how faithfully Simancas says the 
one, or Becanus the other, let them 
take it between them and the reader 
be judge. In the mean time, the 
very Canon of the Council of Con- 
stance (Sess. xix.) is this: Quod 
non obstantibus salvis conductibus 
imperatoris, regum, &c. possit per 
judicem competentem de heretica 
pravitate inquiri—({In this note a 
reference for the facts, first, of John 
Huss coming to the Council of Con- 
stance at Sigismund’s request; and, 
secondly, of Sigismund’s dissatisfaction 
with the violation of the safe-conduct 
by Huss’s imprisonment, is made to 
an authority “ Edit. in 160.” So it 
stands in Laud’s own edition of the 
Conference, 1639. In the editions of 
1673 and 1686 the reading is “ Edit. 
in 16.” which is adopted by the Cla- 
rendon Press edition of 1839. It is 
plain that the name of the authority 
has been accidentally omitted. Tho- 
rold the Jesuit (T. C.) in his answer to 
Laud’s Conference, “ Laud’s Laby- 
rinth,” p. 157, observes, “ But ‘all 
men know,’ says he (Laud) ‘ that the 
Emperor &c.’ which he pretends to 
prove by a Latin authority of I know 
not whom ; for he cites only ‘ Edit. in 
16°.’ and afterwards ‘Ibid.’ leaving us 
to guess who his author should be: 
but we will show his Lordship all the 
respect we can, and suppose he meant 
to cite some author of credit. What 


VOL. II.—LAUD. 


freedom of speech soever be 


doth he say,” &c. Stillingfleet, in his 
reply to Thorold and vindication of 
Laud, “Historical Account of the 
Grounds of Protestant Religion,” does 
not supply the reference defective in 
Laud. ‘The present Editor has not 
been able to recover the exact words ; 
but the following passages from writers 
on either side of the dispute, abun- 
dantly confirm the facts which Laud 
has left upon anonymous authority. 
Hussius damnatur fremente licet Si- 
gismundo.— Whittaker. Respons. ad 
rationem IV. Campiani, Op., tom. i. 
p- 20. col. 2.—Sigismundus misit no- 
biles Bohemos conciliarios suos, ad 
Joannem Huss, qui ei persuaderent ut 
sub fide publica...ad Constantiam 
veniret.—D. Joannis Molani Sacre 
Theolog. Lovan. Professor. de fide 
Heereticis servanda, libri IIL. lib ii. cap. 
1. p. 63. ed. Colon. 1584.—Cum autem 
eo venisset aberat Sigismundus, et 
mox a concilio est arrestatus (sc. Joan. 
Huss.) . . . Tum rex libenter eum, prop- 
ter salvum conductum a se datum, 
captivitate liberasset. Sed a doctis 
responsum accepit, nullo modo deberi 
salvum conductum heeretico pertinaci. 
Ex quo agnoscens fidem a se datam, 
ex juris dispositione, eo se non exten- 
dere, non solum destitit, sed praeterea 
...Joannem Huss degradatum ad se 
recepit, et in pertinacia induratum 
excepit, &c.— Ibid. cap. iii. p. 71.— 
Rex Sigismundus patrize misertus, et 
cleri catholici in Bohemia, per fratrem 
Wenceslaum effecit, ut Joannes Hus 
sub salvo conductu et fide publica 
ipsius Sigismundi regis Constantiam 
in concilium mitteretur.... Quem 
(Hussum sc.) apparitores Papze et Car- 
dinalium comprehendentes.. . in pa- 
latium deduxerunt. Quem rex Roma- 
norum libenter propter salvum con- 
ductum liberasset, nisi a doctis accep- 
isset responsum, Nullo jure deberi 
salvum conductum heretico in sua 
hzeresi persistentem.—Cochleei Histor. 
Hussitarum, lib. ii. pp. 70, 74. ed. apud 
8. Victorem prope Moguntiam, 1549. 
The last citation in Cochleeus is from 
a work on the Council of Constance, 
written in German, by an eye-witness, 
Ulric Reichenthal. ] 


M 


161 


Srotron 
XXI. 


162 


CoNFERENCE promised us. 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


A.C. p. 57. 


The Church of England desires and prays for Christian Unity. 


For to what end freedom of speech on their 
part, since they are resolved to alter nothing?Y And to 
what end freedom of speech on our part, if, after speech hath 
been free, life shall not? 

VITI.—And yet for all this, A. C. “makes no doubt, but 
that the Roman Church is so far from being cause of the 
continuance of the schism, or hindrance of the re-union, 
that it would yet give a free hearing with most ample safe 
conduct, if any hope might be given, that the Protestants 
would sincerely seek nothing but truth and peace.” Truly 
A. Ὁ. is very resolute for the Roman Church, yet how far he 
may undertake for it, I cannot tell. But for my part, 1 am 
of the same opinion for the “ continuing of the schism,” 
that I was for the making of it; that is, that it is ill, very 
ill done of those, whoever they be, Papists or Protestants, 
that give just cause to continue a separation. But for free 
hearings or safe conducts, I have said enough, till that 
Church do not only say, but do, otherwise. And as for truth 
and peace, they are in every man’s mouth, with you and with 
us; but lay they but half so close to the hearts of men, as 
they are common on their tongues, it would soon be better 
with Christendom than at this day it is, or is like to be. 
And for the Protestants in general, I hope they seek both 
truth and peace sincerely. The Church of England, I am 
sure, doth, and hath taught me to pray for both,’ as 1 most 
heartily do. But what Rome doth in this, if the world will 
not see, I will not censure. 


y For so much A. C. confesses, 
Ρ. 45. For if they should give way 
to the altering of one, then why not of 


riam ; atque interna intentione con- 
traria, cujuscunque modi sit species 
exterior, sacramentum reddi invali- 


another, and another, and so of all? 
And the Trent Fathers, in a great 
point of doctrine being amazed, and 
not knowing what to answer to a 
Bishop of their own, yet were resolved 
not to part with their common error. 
[Hee rationes Episcopi (se. Minoren- 
sis,) receptam vulgo de necessitate 
intentionis ministri opinionem impug- 
nantis, ceeteros. theologos dederant 
in stuporem, quid ad eas responden- 
dum esset, nescios.| Certum tamen 
erat doctrinam eam non probare, sed 
quam antea didicissent, firmiter 
tenere, [veram ministri intentionem 
aut actis, aut potentia, esse necessa- 


dum.—P. Sarpi.] Hist. Concil. Tri- 
dent. lib. ii. p. 277. ed. Leyd. 1622. 
[p. 192. ed. August. Trinobant. 
1620.] 

2. “Beseeching God to inspire con- 
tinually the Universal Church with 
the spirit of truth, unity, and concord.” 
—(‘ Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, 
&e. So fetch them home, blessed 
Lord, to Thy flock, that they may be 
saved among the remnant of the true 
Israelites, and be made one flock 
under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ our 
Lord,’ &c.] In the prayer for the 
militant Church; and in the third 
collect on Good-Friday. 


Moral Corruption no sufficient ground of Separation. 


1X.—And for that, which A. C. adds, “that such a free 
hearing is more than ever the English Catholics could obtain, 
though they have often offered and desired it, and that but 
under the prince’s word; and that no answer hath, nor no 
good answer can be given :”’—and he cites Campian for it :— 
how far, or how often this hath been asked by the English 
Romanists, I cannot tell, nor what answer hath been given 
them. But surely Campian was too bold, and so is A. C. 
too, to say, Honestum responsum nullum, “no good answer” 
can be given.* For this, I think, is a very good answer, 
That the Kings and the Church of England had no reason 
to admit of a public dispute with the English Romish clergy, 
till they shall be able to show it, under the seal or powers of 
Rome, that that Church will submit to a third, who may be 
an indifferent judge between us and them, or to such a 
General Council as is after mentioned.» And this is an 
honest, and I think, a full answer. And without this all 
disputation must end in clamour; and therefore the more 
public, the worse ; because as the clamour is the greater, so 
perhaps will be the schism too. 


¥. Moreover he said, he would ingenuously acknow- 

ledge, that the corruption of manners in the Romish 

Church was not a sufficient cause to justify their 
departing from it. 

%. I would I could say you did as ingenuously repeat, 

as I did confess. For I never said that corruption of man- 


ners was, or was not, a sufficient cause to justify their 
departure. How could I say this, since I did not grant that 


* [Anno preeterito.. . interiorem in 
Angliam ubi penetrassem, nihil vidi 
familiarius, quam inusitata supplicia ; 
nihil certius quam incerta pericula... 
autographon apud me habui, ut me- 
cum, si caperer, caperetur. Exemplum 
ejus apud amicum deposui, quod, me 
quidem nesciente, pluribus communi- 
catum est. Adversarii publicatam 
schedulam atrociter acceperunt, cum 
ceetera tum illud invidiosissime crimi- 
nantes, quod unus omnibus in hoe 
religionis negotio certamen obtulis- 
sem; quanquam solus in acie non 
eram futurus, si fide publica dispu- 
tassem. Responderunt postulatis meis 


Hanmerus et Charcus. Quid tamen ? 
Otiose omnia. Nullum enim respon- 
sum, preter unum, honeste dabunt, 
quod nunquam dabunt: Conditiones 
amplectimur: Regina spondet: A dvola. 
Interea clamant isti: sodalitium tuum, 
seditiones tuas, arrogantiam tuam, 
proditorem, sine dubio, proditorem. 
Ridicule. ]—[Edmund.] Campian. [doc- 
tissimis academicis Oxon. et Canta- 
brig. in] preef. preefix. [Decem] Ra- 
tion[ibus propositis in causa fidei: apud 
Opuscul., pp. 12, 18. ed. Antverp. 
1631.] 


> Sect. xxvi. No. 1. 


M 2 


163 


SECTION 


XXIL. 


ASIC Sp: δ. 


[A.C.p.55.] 


§ 22. 


164 


Corruption of Manners in the Church of Rome, 


Conrrnence they did depart, otherwise than is before expressed? There 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


is difference between departure and causeless thrusting from 
you; for out of the Church is not in your power (God be 
thanked) to thrust us: think on that. And so much I said 
expressly then. That which I did ingenuously confess, was 
this : “ That corruption in manners only is no sufficient cause 
to make a separation in the Church: nor is it. It is 
a truth agreed on by the Fathers, and received by divines 
of all sorts, save by the Cathari, to whom the Donatist and 
the Anabaptist after accorded: and against whom Calvin 
disputes it strongly. And S. Augustine is plain: “There 
are bad fish in the net of the Lord, from which there must 
be ever a separation in heart and in manners ; but a corporal 
separation must be expected at the sea-shore, that is, the 
end of the world.”! And the best fish that are, must not 
tear and break the net, because the bad are with them. And 
this is as ingenuously confessed for you, as by me. For if 
corruption in manners were a just cause of actual separation 
of one church from another, in that catholic body of Christ, 
the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any ; since, 
as Stapleton grants, “there is scarce any sin that can be 
thought by man, heresy only excepted, with which that see 
hath not been foully stained, especially from eight hundred 


years after Christ.” δ 


© Sect. xxi. No. 6. [ubi sup. p. 159.] 

4 Modo ea, que ad cathedram perti- 
nent, recta praecipiant.—S. Hier. Ep. 
236. [ἢ 

¢ (Tales olim erant Cathari, et... 
Donatistee. Tales hodie sunt ex Ana- 
baptistis nonnulli, qui supra alios 
volunt videri profecisse...peccant... 
quod offensioni suze modum statuere 
nesciunt. Nam ubi Dominus clemen- 
tiam exigit, omissa illa, totos se im- 
moderate severitati tradunt. Quia 
enim non putant esse Ecclesiam, ubi 
non est solida vite puritas et integritas, 
scelerum odio a legitima ecclesia dis- 
cedunt, dum a factione improborum 
declinare se putant. Allegant Eccle- 
siam Christi sanctam esse. Verum, 
ut simul intelligant esse ex bonis et 
malis permixtam, illam ex ore Christi 
parabolam audiant, in qua reti com- 
paratur, &c.—Calvin.] Instit. lib, iy. 
a § 13. ἄς. [Op., tom. viii. p. 


274. 


And he need not except heresy, into 


ΓΒ. Augustin.] Epist. xlviii. [xciii. 
&c. ubi sup. p. 155. note®.] A malis 
piscibus corde semper et moribus se- 
parantur, ὅθ. Corporalem [autem] 
separationem in littore maris, hoc est, 
in fine seculi [Ecclesia] expectat, 
[corrigens quos potest, tolerans quos 
corrigere non potest. | 

& [Decimo, ad reliquas omnes yvexa- 
tiones accesserunt enormia et horrenda 
Rom. pontificum peceata atque flagi- 
tia.] Vix [enim] ullum peccatum, 
sola heresi excepta, cogitari potest, 
quo illa sedes turpiter maculata non 
fuerit, maxime ab anno 800 [et infra. 
Et tamen contra tot persecutiones 
externas et internas, sibi quasi succe- 
dentes, post tot hzereses, tot schismata, 
tot domesticas calamitates, tot et tanta 
Romane curie peccata...manet et 
stat Romana sedes &c.—Stapleton.] 
Relect. Controy. Controv. 1. [de Ecele- 
sia in se.] Quest. v. Art. 3. [Op., 
tom. i. p. 597. D.] 


EEE ΔἍ,ΙΘΝΣ ἈΝ ΡΨ ΜΟΡΗΒΒΝΒΜΘΟΡ ΎΜΝΟΙ ΦΒΒΝΒΒΡΙΒΗΡΝΘΡΘΜΟΡΟΉΡΜΘΡΟΒΟΡΟΡΌΝΟΟΝΝ 


and also dangerous Errors in Doctrine. 165 


which Biel grants it possible the bishops of that see may ϑποττον 
fall” And Stellai and Almaine grant it freely, that some _**!I. 
of them did fall, and so ceased to be heads of the Church, Eph. i. 23. 
and left Christ, God be thanked, at that time of His vicar’s 
defection, to look to His cure Himself. 


f. But, saith [said] he, besides corruption of manners, A. C. p. 55. 


there were also! errors in doctrine... 1 false ees 


caret 


“5. This I spake indeed. And can you prove that I spake A. C.] 
not true in this? But I added, though here again you are ᾧ 23. 
pleased to omit it, “that some of the errors of the Roman 
Church were dangerous to salvation.” For it is not every 
hght error in disputable doctrine and points of curious 
speculation, that can be a just cause of separation in that 
admirable body of Christ, which is His Church, or of one 
member of it from another. For He gave His natural body 
to be rent and torn upon the cross, that His mystical body 
might be one. And 8. Augustine infers upon it, “that he 
is no way partaker of divine charity, that is an enemy to this 
unity.” Now, what errors in doctrine may give just cause of 


h [Veruntamen etsi papa, tanquam 
homo viator, nondum in gratia con- 
firmatus, quandoque deviat: quoniam, 
teste Chrysostomo, (seu pot. auctore 
anonymo op. imperfect. in Matth.) 
Non loca hominem sanctificant, sed 
homo locum; (Decret. par. 1. Dis- 
tinct. xl. cap. 12. Multi: Neque sanc- 
torum filii sunt, qui tenent loca sanc- 
torum : ut ait Hieronym. (ad Heliodor. 
1.) eadem distinct. cap. 2. Non est 
facile: ... Non tamen capitis digni- 
tatem amittit, nisi in heeresim lapsus 
extra ecclesiam fieret : eadem distinct. 
cap. 6. (ex dictis Bonifacii,) δὲ Papa 
... cunctos ipse Papa judicaturus a 
nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehen- 
datur a fide devius.|—Gabr. Biel. 
Canon. Miss. [Expos.] Lect. xxiii. 
[fol. xxxii. col. 4. ed. Johan. Cleyn. 
Lugd. 1514.] 

i {Hoc enim verbum, (sc. Ego rogavi 
pro te &c.) non dixit Christus Petro 
tanquam privatee personee, quia Petrus 
peccavit post heee verba, et fides in 
eo defecit, et multi pontifices Romani 
erraverunt; sicut Marcellinus, qui 
idolis sacrificavit, et Liberius papa, 
qui Arianis consensit, et Anastasius 
quoque secundus propter heeresis cri- 
men repudiatus fuit ab ecclesia, et 


alii etiam plurimi contra catholicam 
fidem tenuerunt, ut Johannes vige- 
simus secundus &c.|—Stella, [Enar- 
rat.] in cap. xxii. Luce Evangel. [tom. 
li. Ὁ. 339. col.1. ed. Antverp. 1622. |— 
Et, Almain in III. Sentent. Distinct. 
xxiv. Q[uzest.] i. in fine. [Dubitatur 
sexto utrum Heclesia Romana possit 
in fide errare; pro ratione notandum 
quod Ecclesia Romana capitur multi- 
pliciter: .... Tertia propositio. He- 
clesia Romana secundo modo capiendo 
pro summo pontifice potest errare in 
fide: nam Leo (Liberius ἢ papa 
erravit in fide imo fuit Arianus: 
Anastasius fuit depositus a sede 
apostolica pro heresi. . . Nam] multz 
sunt decretales heereticze, [sicut dicit 
Ocham, et firmiter hoc credo ; sed non 
licet dogmatizare oppositum, quando 
sunt determinate, nisi manifeste con- 
stet. Quando enim est questio de 
fide, materia deferenda est ad summum 
pontificem, non ut ferat sententiam,sed 
ut concilium congreget, et concilium 
indefectibiliter sententiabit. — fol. 
lxxvii.] And so they erredas Popes. 

k (Extra hoe corpus neminem vivi- 
ficat Spiritus Sanctus: quia sicut ipse 
dicit Apostolus, Caritas Dei ἃ 6. (Rom. 
y. 5.) Non est autem particeps divine 


166 


It is lawful for a particular Church to reform itself ; as also 


Conrerence Separation in this body, or the parts of it one from another, 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


A.C. p. 55. 


(fits τς 
Edit. 
1686. ] 


A.C. p. 56. 


[A.C. p.55.] 


were it never so easy to determine, as I think it is most 
difficult, I would not venture to set it down in particular, 
lest, in these times of discord, I might be thought to open 
a door for schism; which surely I will never do, unless it be 
to let it out. But that there are errors in doctrine, and 
some of them such as most manifestly endanger salvation, 
in the Church of Rome, is evident to them that will not shut 
their eyes. The proof whereof runs through the particular 
points that are between us; and so is too long for this dis- 
course. Now here A. C. would fain have a reason given him, 
“why I did endeavour to show what cause the Protestants 
had to make that rent or division, if I did not grant that 
they made it ?’? Why truly in this reasonable demand I will 
satisfy him. I did it, partly because I had granted’ in the 
general, that corruption in manners was no sufficient cause 
of separation of one particular church from another; and 
therefore it lay upon me at least to name in general what 
was : and partly because he and his party will needs have it so, 
that we did make the separation ; and therefore, though I did 
not grant it, yet amiss I thought it could not be, to declare, 
by way of supposition, that if the Protestants did at first 
separate from the Church of Rome, they had reason so to 
do. For A. C. himself confesses “that error in doctrine of 
the faith is a just cause of separation; so just, as that no 
cause is just but that.” Now, had I leisure to descend into 
particulars, or will to make the rent in the Church wider, 
it is no hard matter to prove that the Church of Rome hath 
erred in the doctrine of faith, and dangerously too: and I 
doubt I shall afterwards descend to particulars, A. C.’s 
importunity forcmg me to it. 


7. ....which when the general Church would not 
reform, it was lawful for particular Churches to 


reform themselves. 


caritatis, qui hostis est unitatis. Non 
habent itaque Spiritum Sanctum, 
qui sunt extra Ecclesiam. ]|—S. Augus- 
tin. Ep. 1. 1110. ad Bonifacium, seu 
Epist. clxxxy. Op., tom. ii. col. 663. 
C.]—[Quare per simplicitatem colum- 
bee didicit Johannes, quia Hic est qui 
baptizat in Spiritu Sancto, fratres 


mei, nisi] quia Columbz non erant 
qui Ecclesiam dissipaverunt? <Acci- 
pitres erant, milvi erant. Non laniat 
columba. [Et vides illos invidiam 
nobis facere quasi de persecutionibus 
quas passi sunt.|—S. Augustin. in 
Johannis Evang. [cap.i.] Tractat. v. 
12. (Op., tom. iii. par. 2. col. 325, C.] 


to promulgate Cath. Truth, independently of the whole Church. 


167 


%. I—Is it then such a strange thing that a particular Srotron 


Church may reform itself, if the general will not? 1 had 
thought, and do so still, that in point of reformation of either 
manners or doctrine, it is lawful for the Church since Christ, 
to do as the Church before Christ did, and might do. The 
Church before Christ consisted of Jews and proselytes. This 
Church came to have a separation upon a most ungodly policy 
of Jeroboam’s, so that it never pieced together again. 
common council to reform all, they would not come. 
it not lawful for Judah to reform herself, when Israel would 
not join ? 
says expressly, “ Though Israel transgress, yet let not Judah 
And S. Jerome expounds it of this very particular 
sin of heresy and error in religion.!. Nor can you say that 
Israel, from the time of the separation, was not a Church ;™ for 
there were true prophets in it, Elias" and Eliszeus,° and others, 
and “thousands that had not bowed knees to Baal.” 
there was salvation for these, which cannot be in the ordinary 
way, where there is no Church. And God threatens to “ cast 
them away, to wander among the nations,” and be no congre- 
gation, no Church. Therefore He had not yet cast them 
away in non Ecclesiam, “into no-Church.” And they are 


sin. 


XXIV. 


§ 94. 


To a 1Kings xii. 
Was 2" 


Sure it was, or else the prophet deceives me, that Hos. iv. 15. 


And 1 Kings 
sabe, Ish 


Hos. ix. 
17: 


expressly called “the people of the Lord” in Jehu’s time, 2 Kingsix. 


and so continued long after. Nor can you plead that Judah Ge 


is your part, and the ten tribes ours, as some of you do; for 


1 Super heereticis prona intelligen- 
tia est, [ad quos, vel de quibus, 
dicitur, Si fornicaris tu Israel, &e.]— 
S. Hieron. [Comment. lib. i. in Osee 
prophet. cap. iv. 15. Op., tom. iil. 
col. 1264.] 

m Nee tamen [omni modo] cessavit 
Deus [non solum illum regem (sc. 
Hieroboam), verum etiam successores 
ejus et impietatis imitatores,] popu- 
lumque ipsum arguere per prophetas. 
Nam ibi extiterunt magni illi et in- 
signes prophetee, [qui etiam mirabilia 
multa fecerunt,| Elias, et Hliszeus [dis- 
cipulus ejus.]—S. Augustin. de civi- 
tate Dei, lib. xvii. cap. 22. [Op., tom. 
vii. col. 406. B.|—[Non enim tantus 
pietatis fervor de subito totus con- 
cidisse credi potest, ut diminui solum 
ac defervescere paulo evidentius tune 
ceepisse. Ita tamen ut qui tot illis 
difficultatibus victi, a JudaJudaicisque 
solennitatibus abstinentes, Jehovam 


non amplius requirebant, tamen non 
adduci posse existimem ut eum cum 
Jeroboamo post tergum projicerent, 
ut] nomen cultumque Hjus [et ipsi et 
eorum sive exemplo, sive hortamentis 
et imitatione,] multi [alii, quamvis in 
schismate, aut verius nec schismati 
consentientes, coram vitulis adorantes 
licet,] religiose intra se haberent. De 
quo numero, eorumve posteris, septem 
illa millia [vivorum ] fuisse statuo, qui 
in persecutione sub [rege] Achabo 
Deum sibi ab idolatria immunes re- 
servasse, [quosque] genua ante Baal 
non flexisse, [scriptum est, 3 Reg. xix. 
18.]—Frane. Monceeus, de vitulo au- 
reo, lib. i. cap. 12. [apud Criticos 
Sacros, tom. ix. sive Tractat. Biblicor. 
tom. ii. col. 4456. ed. Londin. 1660, | 

π 1 Kings xvii. sub Achabo. 

° 2 Kings iii, sub Jehoram filio 
Achabi. 


168 


Particular Reformation lawful, when the Cath. Ch. cannot act 


Conrerence if that be true, you must grant that the multitude and 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


greater number is ours: and where, then, is Multitude, your 
numerous note of the Church? For the ten tribes were 
more than the two. But you cannot plead it: for certainly 
if any “calves” be set up, they are in Dan and in Bethel— 
they are not ours. 

II1.— Besides, to reform what is amiss in doctrine or man- 
ners, is as lawful for a particular Church, as it is to publish 
and promulgate any thing that is catholic in either. And 
your question, Quo judice? lies alike against both. And 
yet I think it may be proved that the Church of Rome, and 
that as a particular Church, did promulgate an orthodox 
truth, which was not then catholicly admitted in the Church ; 
namely, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. 
If she erred in this fact, confess her error; if she erred not, 
why may not another particular Church do as she did? 
A learned schoolman of yours saith she may: ‘The Church 
of Rome needed not to call the Grecians to agree upon this 
truth, since the authority of publishing it was in the Church 
of Rome, especially since it is lawful for every particular 
Church to promulgate that which is catholic.” ? Nor can 
you say he means “catholic,” as fore-determined by the 
Church in general; for so this pot, when Rome added 
Filioque to the Creed of a General Council, was not. And 
how the Grecians were used in the after-Council, such as 
it was, of Florence, is not to trouble this dispute; but 
“catholic” stands there for that which is so in the nature of 
it, and fundamentally. Nor can you justly say, that the 
Church of Rome did, or might do, this, by the Pope’s autho- 
rity over the Church. For suppose he have that, and that 
his sentence be infallible,—I say, suppose both, but I give 
neither,—yet neither his authority, nor his infallibility, can 
belong unto him, as the particular Bishop of that see, but as 
the ministerial head of the whole Church.1 And you are all 
so lodged im this, that Bellarmine professes he can neither 





P Non oportuit ad hoe eos vocare, 
quum auctoritas fuerit publicandi apud 
Keclesiam Romanam, precipue cum 
unicuique etiam particulari Heclesize 
liceat, id, quod catholicum est, pro- 
mulgare: [propter aliquam necessita- 


tem, per cantum et legendas publicas. | 
—Albfert.] Magn. in I. [Sentent.] 
Dist[inet.] xi. A[rtic.] 9. 

4 Nonerrare, convenit Pape, ut est 
Caput.—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif. 
lib. iv. cap. 3. [Op., tom.i. col. 805. C.} 


synodically—A._ free General Council the true Remedy. 


tell the year when, nor the Pope under whom, this addition 
was made." A particular Church then, if you judge it by 
the school of Rome, or the practice of Rome, may publish 
any thing that is catholic, where the whole Church is silent ; 
and may therefore reform any thing that is not catholic, 
where the whole Church is negligent, or will not. 

III.—But you are as jealous of the honour of Rome, as 
Cappellus* is, who is angry with Baronius about certain 
canons in the second Milevitan Council, and saith “ that 
he considered not of what consequence it was, to grant to 
particular Churches the power of making canons of faith, 
without consulting the Roman see, which,” as he saith, and 
you with him, “ was never lawful, nor ever done.” But sup- 
pose this were so, my speech was not “ not consulting,” but 
“in case of neglecting or refusing ;”” or when the difficulty of 
time and place, or other circumstances, are such, that a 
General Council cannot be called, or not convene.‘ For 
that the Roman see must be consulted with, before any 
reformation be made, first, most certain it is, Capellus 
can never prove; and secondly, as certain, that were it 
proved and practised, we should have no reformation. For 
it would be long enough before the Church should be cured, 
if that see alone should be her physician, which in truth is 
her disease. 

IV.—Now, if for all this you will say still, that a Pro- 
vincial Council will not suffice, but we should have borne 


 Bellarmin. de Christo, lib. ii. cap. 21. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 351. A, B.] Quando 
autem [additum sit ad symbolum illud 
Filioque, non est plane certum.... 
Denique certum est Nicolao I. addi- 
tionem hane multo esse antiquiorem. 
... Ht quamvis non possimus certe 
notare annum, aut pontificem certum, 
tamen videtur omnino hoe tempore 
(sc. paulo post annum Domini 600.) 
id esse factum.] So you cannot find 
records of your own truths, which are 
far more likely to be kept: but when 
errors are crept in, we must be bound 
to tell the place and the time, and I 
know not what, of their beginnings, 
or else they are not errors. As if 
some errors might not want a record, 
as well as some truth. 

5. Omnino recte, nisi excepisset [ab 
hac censura sua octo Canones contra 
Pelagium, et vigesimum secundum 


de appellationibus ad transmarina, 
quos in secunda synodo Milevitana 
constitutos fuisse, arbitratus est. 
Neque] consideravit, quanti referat 
concedere ecclesiis particularibus jus 
condendorum canonum de fide, in- 
consulta Romana sede; quod nun- 
quam licuit, nunquam factum est.— 
Cappell. de Appellat. Eccl. Africane, 
cap. ii. No. 12. [pp. 30, 31. ed. Rome, 
1722.] 

t Rex confitetur se vocasse Con- 
cilium tertium Toletanum ; quia de- 
cursis retro temporibus heeresis im- 
minens in tota Heclesia Catholica 
agere synodica negotia denegavit, ὅσο. 
—Concil. Toletan. III, Can. i. [This, 
as the context shows, is not one of 
the canons, but the speech of King 
Recearedus on the opening of the 
Council.—Concil. tom. v. col. 997. 1).] 


169 


ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ 


XXIV. 


170 


Provincial Councils may reform both in Doctrine and Discipline. 


Correrence With things till the time of a General Council, First, it is 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


James i.20. 


true, a General Council, free and entire, would have been 
the best remedy, and most able for a gangrene that had 
spread so far, and eaten so deep into Christianity. But 
what? Should we have suffered this gangrene to endanger 
life and all, rather than be cured in time by a physician of a 
weaker knowledge and a less able hand? Secondly, We 
live to see since, if we had stayed and expected a General 
Council, what manner of one we should have had, if any. 
For that at Trent was neither general nor free: and for 
the errors which Rome had contracted, it confirmed them ; 
it cured them not. And yet I much doubt, whether ever 
that Council, such as it was, would have been called, if 
some provincial and national synods, under supreme and 
regal power, had not first set upon this great work of 
reformation ; which I heartily wish had im all places been 
as orderly and happily pursued, as the work was right 
Christian and good in itself. But human frailty, and the 
heats and distempers of men, as well as the cunning of the 
devil, would not suffer that. For even in this sense also, 
“the wrath of man doth not accomplish the will of God.” 
But I have learned not to reject the good which God hath 
wrought, for any evil which men may fasten to it. 

V.—And yet if, for all this, you think it is better for us to 
be blind than to open our own eyes, let me tell you, very 
grave and learned men, and of your own party, have taught 
me, that when the universal Church will not, or for the 
iniquities of the times cannot, obtain and settle a free 
General Council, it is lawful, nay sometimes necessary, to 
reform gross abuses by a national, or a provincial. For, 
besides Alb. Magnus, whom I quoted before," Gerson, the 
learned and devout chancellor of Paris, tells us plainly, “ that 
he will not deny but that the Church may be reformed by 
parts ; and that this is necessary, and that to effect it, 
Provincial Councils may suffice; and, in some things, 
Diocesan.”* And again, “ Hither you should reform all 

ἃ Sect. xxiv. No. 2. [ubisup. p.168. sed ad hoe agendum sufficerent con- 
note P. ] cilia provincialia, [et ad queedam satis 

x Nolo tamen dicere, quinin multis essent concilia dicecesana et syno- 


partibus possit Ecclesia persuas partes  dalia, &c.]—Johan. Gerson. tractat. 
reformari: immo hoc necesse esset; de Concilio generali unius obedientiz, 


Several Ancient Instances. 


estates of the Church in a General Council, or command 
them to be reformed in Provincial Councils.”Y Now Gerson 
lived about two hundred years since. But this right of 
provincial synods, that they might decree in causes of faith, 
and in cases of reformation, where corruptions had crept 
into the sacraments of Christ, was practised much above a 
thousand years ago by many, both national and provincial, 
synods. For the Council at Rome’ under Pope Sylvester, 
an. 324, condemned Photinus and Sabellius. (And their 
heresies were of high nature against the faith.) The Council 
at Gangra,* about the same time, condemned Eustathins for 
his condemning of marriage as unlawful. The first Council 
at Carthage,” being a provincial, condemned rebaptization 
much about the year 348. The Provincial Council at 
Aquileia,° in the year 381, in which 8. Ambrose was present, 
condemned Palladius and Secundinus for embracing the 
Arian heresy. The second Council of Carthage* handled 
and decreed the belief and preaching of the Trinity; and 
this a little after the year 424. The Council of Milevis in 
Africa,® in which S. Augustine was present, condemned the 
whole course of the heresy of Pelagius, that great and 
bewitching heresy, in the year 416. The second Council at 
Orange,’ a provincial too, handled the great controversies 
about grace and free-will, and set the Church right in them, 
in the year 444 [529.] The third Council at Toledo,’ a 


part. i. p. 222. F. [Op., tom. ii. col. 26. 
B. ed. Dupin. |] 

y [Quid plura? Ab Episcopis ad 
concilium generale venientibus de 
qualibet provincia, de omnibus in- 
quirite abusivis consuetudinibus, et 
perniciosis ritibus, quacumque oc- 
casione in ecclesiis et hominum 
statibus regionum diversarum intro- 
ductis, ut super deviationibus pre- 
missis, et consimilibus,] omnes 
ecclesize status vel generali concilio 
reformetis, aut in conciliis provinciali- 
bus reformari mandetis, [ut de aucto- 
ritate vestra reparetur Ecclesia, et 
purgetur domus Dei ab immundiciis, 
vitiis, et erroribus universis. |—Johan. 
Gerson. declarat. defectuum virorum 
Eeclesiasticorum, par. 1. p. 209. B. 
[Op., tom. ii. col. 317. 1). ed. Dupin.] 

 Concil. Roman. IJ. sub Sylvestro. 
—([Concil. tom. i. col. 1542. B.] 


® Concil. Gang. Can. i.—[Concil. 
tom. ii. col. 421. B.] 

> Concil. Carth. I. Can. i—[Conceil. 
tom. ii. col. 714. A.] 

© Concil. Aquiliens.—[Concil. tom. 
li. col. 979. Ο.] 

4 Concil. Carth. II. Can.i.—[Concil. 
tom. 11. col. 1159. B. The ordinary, but 
incorrect, date of this council is 397.] 

© Quedam de causis fidei, unde 
nune questio Pelagianorum imminet, 
in hoc ccetu sanctissimo primitus 
tractentur, &¢.—Aurel. Carthaginen- 
sis [Episcop.] in Preefat. Concil. Mi- 
levit. apud Caranzam, ee Concil. 
p. 203. ed. Duac. 1679. 

f Concil. Arausican. II. Can.i.ii. &e. 
—([Concil. tom. iv. col. 1667, et seqq. ] 

& Concil. Tolet. I11.—[Concil. tom. 
y. col. 997. The anathemas of this 
council were twenty-four in number. 
—ibid. col. 1003—1005.] 


171 


SECTION 


ENOXGIAV 


172 


Objections to the English Reformation answered. 


Coxrrrence national one, in the year 589, determined many things against 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


the Arian heresy, about the very prime articles of faith, under 
fourteen several anathemas. The fourth Council at Toledo 
did not only handle matters of faith for the reformation of 
that people, but even added also some things to the 
creed, “which were not expressly delivered in former 
creeds.”" Nay, the bishops did not only practise this, to 
condemn heresies in national and provincial synods, and so 
reform those several places, and the Church itself by parts ; 
but they did openly challenge this as their right and due, 
and that without any leave asked of the See of Rome. For 
in this fourth Council of Toledo, they decree, “ that if 
there happen a canse of faith to be settled, a general, that 
is, a national synod of all Spain and Gallicia shall be held 
thereon.”' And this in the year 643 [633]: where you see it 
was then Catholic doctrine in all Spain, that a national synod 
might be a competent judge in a cause of faith. AndI would 
fain know, what article of the faith doth more concern all 
Christians in general, than that of Filiogue 2? And yet the 
Church of Rome herself made that addition to the creed 
without a General Council, as I have showed already.« 
And if this were practised so often, and in so many places, 
why may not a National Council of the Church of England 
do the lke ?—as she did. For she cast off the Pope’s 
usurpation, and, as much as in her lay, restored the King to 
his right. That appears by a book subscribed by the 
bishops in Henry the Eighth’s time;! and by the records™ 
in the Archbishop’s office, orderly kept and to be seen. In 
the Reformation which came after, our princes had their 
parts, and the clergy theirs ;" and to these two principally 


h Que omnia in aliis Symbolis ex- 
plicite tradita non sunt. — Concil. 
Tolet. IV. Can. i—[{Concil. tom. v. 
col. 1703. The words cited by Laud 
are not from the decree of the council ; 
but they are part of Caranza’s Summary 
of the first Canon.—Summ. Concil. 
p- 388. ] 

i Statuimus, ut saltem semel in 
anno a nobis concilium celebretur; 
ita tamen, ut si causa fidei est, aut 
queelibet alia Ecclesize communis, 
generalis [totius] Hispanize et Gallicize 
synodus convocetur, &c. — Concil. 


Tolet. IV. Can. iiii—[Concil. tom. ν. 
col. 1704. C.] 

Sect. xxiv. No. 2. [ubi sup. p. 168.] 

1 The Institution of a Christian 
man: printed an. 1534. 

™ Jn Synodo Londinensi, Sess. viii. 
Die Veneris, xxix. Januarii, an. 1562. 

« And so in the Reformation under 
Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.), and under 
Josiah (2 Kings xxiii.), And in the 
time of Reccaredus, King of Spain, the 
Reformation there proceeded thus : 
Quum gloriosissimus princeps omnes 
regiminis sui pontifices in unum 


The Church of Rome prevents Reformation in the Church as a whole. 


the power and direction for reformation belongs. That our 
princes had their parts, is manifest by their calling together 
of the bishops and others of the clergy, to consider of that 
which might seem worthy reformation. And the clergy did 
their part : for being thus called together by regal power, they 
met in the national synod of sixy-two [1562]; andthe Articles 
there agreed on were afterwards confirmed by acts of state 
and the royal assent. In this synod the positive truths 
which are delivered are more than the polemics ; so that a 
mere calumny it is, that we profess only a negative religion. 
True it is, and we must thank Rome for it, our confession 
must needs contain some negatives; for we cannot but 
deny that images are to be adored; nor can we admit 
maimed sacraments; nor grant prayers in an unknown 
tongue. And in a corrupt time or place, it is as necessary 
in religion to deny falsehood, as to assert and vindicate 
truth. Indeed, this latter can hardly be well and suffi- 
ciently done, but by the former ; an affirmative verity being 
ever included in the negative to a falsehood. As for any 
error which might fall mto this, as any other, reformation, 
if any such can be found, then I say, and it is most true; 
reformation, especially in cases of religion, is so difficult a 
work, and subject to so many pretensions, that it is almost 
impossible but the reformers should step too far, or fall too 
short, in some smaller things or other ; which, in regard of 
the far greater benefit coming by the reformation itself, 
may well be passed over and borne withal. But if there 
have been any wilful and gross errors, not so much in 
opinion as in fact, sacrilege® too often pretending to reform 
superstition,—that is the crime of the reformers, not of the 


vientes ad emendandam vestram im- 
pietatem promulgaverunt, res pro- 


convenire mandasset, &c. — Concil. 
Tolet. Il]. Can. i. [Concil. tom. v. col. 


997. B.|—Cum convenissemus sacer- 
dotes Domini apud urbem Toletanam, 
ut regiis imperiis atque jussis com- 
moniti, &e.— Concil. Tolet. IV. in 
prince. apud Caranzam. [p. 388.] And 
both these synods did treat of matters 
of faith. 

° [Nos eis congregandis laboravi- 
mus, cum scriptum legatis, Labores 
impiorum justi edent. (Prov. xiii. 22.) 
Sed tamen] quisquis occasione hujus 
legis, quam reges terres Christo ser- 


prias vestras cupide appetit, displicet 
nobis. Quisquis denique ipsas res 
pauperum, vel Basilicas congregatio- 
num, [quas sub nomine Lcclesix 
tenebatis, quae omnino non debentur 
nisi ei ecclesia, qua vera Christi 
Ecclesia est,| non per justitiam, sed 
per avaritiam, tenet, displicet nobis. — 
S. Augustin. Hpist. xlviii. vers. finem. 
{Epist. xciii. ad Vincentium Rogatis- 
tam, cap. 12. Op., tom. ii. col. 251. G.] 


173 


SEoTIon 
XV 


174 


Who is to be Judge of these points ? 


Coyrerence reformation ; and they are long since gone to God to answer 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


A.C. p. 57. 


it, to whom I leave them. 

VI.—But now before I go off from this point, I must put 
you in remembrance too, that I spake at that time,—and so 
must all that will speak of that exigent,—of the General 
Church, as it was for the most part forced under the 
government of the Roman see. And this you understand 
well enough ; for, in your very next words, you call it the 
“ Roman Church.” Now I make no doubt, but that as the 
universal Catholic Church would have reformed herself, had 
she been in all parts freed of the Roman yoke ; so while she 
was for the most in these Western parts under that yoke, the 
Church of Rome was, if not the only, yet the chief, hindrance 
of reformation. And then in this sense, it is more than 
clear, that if the Roman Church will neither reform, nor 
suffer reformation, it is lawful for any other particular 
Church to reform itself, so long as it doth it peaceably and 
orderly, and keeps itself to the foundation, and free from 
sacrilege.? 


F. I asked, Quo judice,* did this appear to be so? Which 
question I asked, as not thinking it equity that 


Protestants in their own cause should be accusers, 


witnesses, and judges of the Roman Church. 


* [This question the Jesuit made chiefly against that part of the %.’s last 
speech, in which he said, “there were errors in doctrine”: for if the 38. meant, 
as the Jesuit understood him to mean, that there were errors of doctrine of faith 
in the General Church, never did any lawful and competent judge so censure, 
neither can it so be. No power in earth or hell itself can so far prevail against 
the General Church of Christ, built upon a rock, as to make it, or the pastors 
thereof, err generally in any one point of divine truth. Christ’s promises stand 


Quare, 


P And this a particular Church may 
do; but not a schism. Fora schism 
can never be peaceable, nor orderly, 
and seldom free from sacrilege. 
Out of which respects, it may be, as 
well as for the grievousness of the 
erime, S. Augustine calls it Sacri- 
legium Schismatis, de Baptismo 
eontra Dontatist. lib. i. eap. 8. [lib. ii. 
cap. 7. Op., tom. ix. col. 102. B. 
Contaminabat Cyprianum  Sacrile- 
gium schismaticorum, an non con- 
taminabat?..... Si autem non con- 
taminabat, quo scelere alieno possunt 
in unitate contaminari innocentes, si 
schismatis sacrilegio non possunt ? 


Quare ergo vos separastis? 
cum leviora que fingitis fugitis, 
ipsum sacrilegium schismatis, quod 
est omnibus grayius, commisistis ?— 
Cf. item : Denique quandoalienapeccata 
vos perverse devitanda esse censuistis, 
alia vestra fecistis sacrilegum schisma 
populos dividendo, et sacrilegam 
heeresim contra Dei manifestata pro- 
missa et impleta de ecclesia toto orbe 
diffusa nefario spiritu sentiendo.— 
S. Augustin. contra Gaudefit. Do- 
natist. lib. ii. cap. 9. Op., tom. ix. 
col. 672. C.J] For usually they go 
together. 


Even if the claim to a Supremacy were allowed ; 


(Matt. xvi. [18.] and xxviii. (20.] Luke xxii. [82.] John xiv. [16.] and xvi. 
[13.]), and will never permit this: no, not in Antichrist’s days. Particular 
pastors and churches may fall into heresy or apostasy, but the whole Church 
cannot. It may sometime not expressly teach or know all divine truths, which 
afterwards it may learn by study of Scriptures and other ways: but it never 
did, nor can universally, by its full authority teach any thing to be divine truth, 
which is not; and much less anything to be a matter of faith, which is contrary 
to divine truth, either expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood, 
So as no reformation of faith can be needful in the General Church, but only in 
particular churches: in which case also, when the need is only questionable, 
particular pastors or churches must not take upon them to judge, and condemn 
others of error in faith, but, as S. Irenzeus intimateth, must have recourse to that 
Church which hath more powerful principality, the Church of Rome, and to her 
Bishop, being chief pastor of the whole Church, as being successor to S. Peter, 
to whom Christ promised the keys (Matt. xvi. [19.]), for whom Christ prays that 
his faith might not fail (Luke xxii. [32.]), and whom He charged to confirm his 
brethren, and to feed and govern the whole flock, lambs and sheep (John xxi. 
[17.]), people and pastors, subjects and superiors ; which he shall never refuse 
to do in such sort, as that this neglect shall be a just cause for any particular 
man or church to make a schism or separation of himself and others from the 
whole General Church, under pretence of reformation either of manners or of 
faith. 

Protestants therefore did ill in first dividing themselves from the General 
Church, and do still illin continuing divided from it. Neither can those Protest- 
ants be excused from intolerable pride and insolent madness, who presume to 
be accusers, witnesses, judges, and executioners of the sentence pronounced by 
themselves against the Church in General, and against the principal and mother 
Church, and the Bishop of Rome, which is and ought to be their judge in this 
case, For although it be against equity that subjects and children should be 
accusers, witnesses, judges and executioners against their prince and mother 
in any case, yet it is not absurd that in some case the prince or mother may 
accuse, witness, judge, and, if need be, execute justice against unjust or rebel- 
lious subjects, or evil children.—A. C. marg. note to p. 57.] 


%. I—You do well to tell the reason now why you asked 
this question ; for you did not discover it at the Conference : 
if you had, you might then have received your answer. It is 
most true: no man in common equity ought to be suffered 
to be accuser, witness, and judge in his own cause. But is 
there not as little reason and equity too, that any man that 
is to be accused, should be the accused, and yet witness, and 
judge in his own cause? If the first may hold, no man shall 
be innocent ; and if the last, none will be nocent. And what 
do we here with “in their own cause against the Roman 
Church”? Why, is it not your own, too, against the Pro- 
testant Church? And if it be a cause common to both, as 
certain it is, then neither part alone may be judge: if neither 
alone may judge, then either they must be judged by a third 
which stands indifferent to both,1—and that is the Scripture ; 
or if there be a jealousy or doubt of the sense of the Scrip- 
ture, they must either both repair to the exposition of the 


4 Sect. xxi. No. 9. [ubi sup. p. 163.] 


175 


SECTION 


XXV. 


§ 25. 


176 


the Question must still be decided by the Divine Law. 


Conrerexce primitive Church, and submit to that; or both call, and 


WITH 
FIsHER. 





A.C. p.58. 


submit to, a General Council, which shall be lawfully called, 
and fairly and freely held, with indifferency to all parties : and 
that must judge the difference according to Scripture, which 
must be their rule as well as private men’s. 

I1.—And here, after some loud cry against the pride and 
insolent madness of the Protestants, A. C. adds, “that the 
Church of Rome is the principal and mother Church; and 
that, therefore, though it be against common equity that 
subjects and children should be accusers, witnesses, judges, 
and executioners against their prince and mother in any 
case, yet it is not absurd that, in some cases, the prince or 
mother may accuse, witness, judge, and, if need be, execute 
justice, against unjust and rebellious subjects, or evil chil- 
dren.” How far forth Rome is a prince over the whole 
Church, or a mother of it, will come to be shewed at after. 
In the meantime, though I cannot grant her to be either, 
yet let us suppose her to be both, that A.C.’s argument may 
have all the strength it can have. Nor shall it force me, 
as plausible as it seems, to weaken the just power of princes 
over their subjects, or of mothers over their children, to 
avoid the shock of this argument. For though A. C. may 
tell us “it is not absurd in some cases,” yet I would fain 
have him name any one moderate prince that ever thought 
it just, or took it upon him, to be accuser, and witness, and 
judge in any cause of moment against his subjects, but that 
the law had liberty to judge between them. For the great 
philosopher tells us, “that the chief magistrate is custos 
juris, the guardian and keeper of the law; and if of the law, 
then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them 
that are under him.”* And even Tiberius himself, in the 
cause of Silanus, when Dolabella would have flattered him 
into more power than in wisdom he thought fit then to take 
to himself, he put him off thus: “No; the laws grow less 
where such power enlarges: nor is absolute power to be 
used where there may be an orderly proceeding by law.” * 


t ἔστι δὲ ὁ ἄρχων φύλαξ τοῦ δικαίου; cipibus, satis etiam potentie :] minui 
εἰ δὲ τοῦ δικαίου, καὶ τοῦ trov.—Aristot. jura quotiens gliscat potestas; nec 
Eth. [Nicom. lib. v.] cap. 6. [Op., utendum imperio, ubi legibus agi pos- 
tom. ix. p. 101. ed. Bekker. ] sit.—Tacit. Annal. lib. iii. [cap. 69. 

s [Ne verterent sapienter reperta, ed. Brotier- ] 
et semper placita: satis onerum prin- 


Errors of the Western Church attributable to influence of Rome. 


177 


And for parents, it is true, when children are young, they Srorroy 


may chastise them without other accuser or witness than 


ΧΧΥ. 


themselves ; and yet the children are to give them reverence. Heb. xii. 9. 


And it is presumed that natural affection will prevail so far 
with them, that they will not punish them too much. For 
all experience tells us, almost to the loss of education, that 
they punish them too little, even when there is cause.’ 
Yet when children are grown up, and come to some full use 


of their own reason, the Apostle’s rule is, ‘‘ Parents, provoke Coloss. iii. 


not your children.” 
froward parents, there is a magistrate and a law to relieve 
even a son against unnatural parents, as it was in the case 
of T. Manlius against his over-imperious father." And an 


And if the Apostle prevail not with “ἢ 


express law there was among the Jews, when children were yee XXi. 


grown up and fell into great extremities, that the parents 
should then bring them to the magistrate, and not be too 
busy im such cases with their own power. So suppose Rome 
be a prince, yet her subjects must be tried by God’s law, 
the Scripture: and suppose her a mother, yet there is, or 
ought to be, remedy against her for her children that are 
grown up, if she forget all good nature, and turn step-dame 
to them. 

I1J.— Well, the reason why the Jesuit asked the question, 
Quo judice? “Who should be judge?” he says was this; 
Because there is no equity in it, that the Protestants should 


be judges in their own cause. But now upon more delibe- 


ration A. C. tells us, as if he knew the Jesuit’s mind as well A.C. p. 57. 


as himself, (as sure I think he doth,) “that the Jesuit 
directed this question chiefly against that speech of mine, 
That there were errors in doctrine of faith, and that in the 
General Church, as the Jesuit understood my meaning.” 
The Jesuit here took my meaning right. For I confess I 
said there were errors in doctrine, and dangerous ones too, 
in the Church of Rome. I said likewise, that when the 


* God used Samuel as a messenger ἃ Crimini ei tribunus inter cetera 


against Eli for his overmuch indul- 
gence to his sons. 1 Sam. iii. 13. And 
yet Samuel himself committed the 
very same fault concerning his own 
sons. 1 Sam. viii. 3--5. And this in- 
dulgence occasioned the change of the 
civil government, as the former was 
the loss of the priesthood. 


VOL. II.— LAUD, 


dabat, quod filium juvenem, nullius 
probri compertum, extorrem urbe, 
domo, penatibus, foro, luce, congressu 
sequalium prohibitum, in opus servile, 
prope in carcerem, atque in ergastu- 
lum, dederit.—Liv. dec. 1. lib. vii. 
[cap. 4.] 


178 


The whole Church cannot err in points necessary to Salvation ; 


Conrereycs General Church could not, or would not, reform such, it was 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


'[later... 
Edit.1673.] 


A. C. p. 57. 


lawful for particular Churches to reform themselves. But 
then I added, “that the General Church (not universally 
taken, but in these western parts) fell into those errors, 
being swayed in these latter’ ages by the predominant power 
of the Church of Rome, under whose government it was for 
the most part forced.’ And all men of understanding know 
how oft and how easily an over-potent member carries the 
whole with it, in any body, natural, politic, or ecclesiastical. 

IV.—Yea, but A. C. tells us, “that never any competent 
judge did so censure the Church; and, indeed, that no 
power on earth, or in hell itself, can so far prevail against 
the General Church as to make it err generally m any one 
point of divine truth, and much less to teach any thing by 
its full authority to be a matter of faith which is contrary to 
divine truth, expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly 
understood. And that, therefore, no reformation of faith 
can be needful in the General Church, but only in particular 
Churches.” And for proof of this he cites 8. Matt. xvi. and 
xxviii., 5. Luke xxii., S. John xiv. and xvi. In this trouble- 
some and quarrelling age, I am most unwilling to meddle 
with the erring of the Church in general. The Church of 
England is content to pass that over. And though she tells 
us, “That the Church of Rome hath erred even in matters 
of faith,” * yet of the erring of the Church in general she is 
modestly silent. But since A.C. will needs have it, that the 
whole Church did never generally err in any one point of faith, 
he should do well to distinguish before he be so peremptory. 
For if he mean no more than “that the whole Universal 
Church of Christ cannot universally err in any one point of 
faith simply necessary to all men’s salvation,” he fights 
against no adversary that I know, but his own fiction. For 
the most learned Protestants grant it. But if he mean that 
the whole Church cannot err in any one point of divine truth 
in general, which, though by sundry consequences deduced 


x Art. XIX. Sancto doceri se per verbum Dei pati- 
y [Nos] si demus [illud primum,] —tur.—Calvin. Instit. lib. iv. cap.8. § 15. 
errare non posse Ecclesiam in rebus [Op., tom. viii. p.310.] And this also 
ad salutem necessariis: hic sensus is our sense. Vide supra, Sect. xxi. 
noster est, ideo hoe esse, quod abdi- No. 5. [p. 155.] 
cata omni sua sapientia, a Spiritu 


Yet it may be misinformed and err in points not fundamental. 179 


from the principles, is yet! a point of faith, and may prove ϑποτιον 
dangerous to the salvation of some, which believe it and bia 
practise after it, as his words seem to import, especially if in eee 
these the Church shall presume to determine without her Editt.1673 
proper guide, the Scripture, as Bellarmine says she may, Bnd ΤΟ δ 
and yet not err ;’—then, perhaps, it may be said, and without 
any wrong to the Catholic Church, that the whole militant 
Church hath erred in such a point of divine truth and of 
faith. Nay, A.C. confesses expressly in his very next words, A. ©. p.58. 
“that the whole Church may at some time not know all 
divine truths, which afterwards it may learn by study of 
Scripture, and otherwise.” So, then, in A. C.’s judgment 
the whole militant Church may at some time not know all 
divine truths. Now, that which knows not all, must be 
ignorant of some; and that which is ignorant of some, may 
possibly err in one point or other; the rather, because he 
confesses the knowledge of it must be got by learning ; and 
learners may mistake and err, especially where the lesson is 
divine truth out of Scripture, out of difficult Scripture. For 
were it of plain and easy Scripture that he speaks, the whole 
Church could not at any time be without the knowledge of 
it. And for aught I yet see, the whole Church militant hath 
no greater warrant against not erring in, than against not 
knowing of, the points of divine truth. For in 8. John xvi. John xvi. 
there is as large a promise to the Church of knowing all points 13 
of divine truth, as A.C., or any Jesuit, can produce for her 
not erring in any. And if she may be ignorant or mistaken 
in learning of any point of divine truth, doubtless in that 
state of ignorance she may both err, and teach her error ; 
yea, and teach that to be divine truth which is not; nay, 
perhaps teach that as a matter of divine truth which is con- 
trary to divine truth, always provided it be not in any point 
simply fundamental, of which the whole Catholic Church 
cannot be ignorant, and in which it cannot err, as hath 
before been proved.* 

V.—As for the places of Scripture which A. C. cites to prove A.C. p. 57. 


* Nostra [igitur] sententia est, Ec- Scripturis, sive non.—Bellarmin. de 
clesiam absolute non posse errare, nec Lecl. Mil. lib. 111. cap.14. § 4. [Op., 
in rebus absolute necessariis, nec in tom. ii. col. 148. D.] 
aliis, quee credenda, vel facienda nobis ἃ Sect. xxi. No. 5. [00] sup. p. 155. ] 
proponit, sive habeantur expresse in 


N 2 


180 


Passages of Scripture alleged conclude, not Infallibility, 


Coxrerence that the whole Church cannot err generally in any one point 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


Ἂς Ὁ τὲ "1: 
A.C. p. 53. 


A.C. pp.58, 
and 73. 


Matt. xvi. 
18, 


of divine truth, be it fundamental or not, they are known 
places, all of them, and are alleged by A. C. three several 
times in this short tract, and to three several purposes. 
Here, to prove that the Universal Church cannot err; before 
this, to prove that the tradition of the present Church cannot 
err ; after this, to prove that the Pope cannot err. He should 
have done well to have added these places a fourth time, to 
prove that General Councils cannot err. For so doth both 
Stapleton” and Bellarmine.< Sure A. C. and his fellows 
are hard driven, when they must fly to the same places for 
such different purposes : for a Pope may err, where a Council 
doth not ; and a General Council may err, where the Catholic 
Church cannot. And, therefore, it is not likely that these 
places should serve alike for all. The first place is S. Mat- 
thew xvi. There Christ told S. Peter, and we believe it most 
assuredly, “That hell gates shall never be able to prevail 
against His Church.” But that is, that they shall not pre- 
vail to make the Church Catholic apostatize, and fall quite 
away from Christ, or err in absolute fundamentals, which 
amounts to as much. But the promise reaches not to this, 
That the Church shall never err ; no, not in the lightest mat- 
ters of faith. For it will not follow: Hell gates shall not 
prevail against the Church ; Therefore hellish devils shall not 
tempt or assault, and batter it. And thus S. Augustine 
understood the place: “It may fight (yea, and be wounded 
too) but it cannot be wholly overcome.” * And Bellarmine 
himself applies it to prove that the visible Church of Christ 
cannot deficere, “err so as quite to fall away.”® Therefore, 
in his judgment, this is a true and a safe sense of this text of 
Scripture. But as for not erring at all, in any point of 


> Stapleton. Relect. [Controv.] in 
pref. ad lectorem. [Op., tom. i. pp. 
511—515.] 

¢ (Concilia generalia a pontifice 
confirmata, errare non posse, ex scrip- 
turis demonstratur.|—Bellarmin. de 
Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 2. [in 
tit. Op., tom. ii. col. 53. C.] 

4 [Ipsa est Ecclesia sancta, Ecclesia 
una, Ecclesia vera, Ecclesia catholiea, 
contra omnes hzreses pugnans :] pug- 
nare potest, expugnari non potest.— 
S. Augustin. lib. de symbolo, ad cate- 


chumen. cap. vi. [Op., tom. vi. col. 
554. E.] 

© {Probare igitur volumus, Eccle- 
siam visibilem non posse deficere ; et 
nomine Ecclesize non  intelligimus 
unum aut alterum hominem Chris- 
tianum, sed multitudinem congrega- 
tam, in qua sint prelati, et subditi. 
Primum, id ostenditur ex scripturis, 
ubi aperte nominatur Ecclesia, Matth. 
xvi. 18. Super hance petram, &c.]— 
Bellarmin. de Eccl. Milit. lib. iii. cap. 
18. § 1, 2. [Op., tom. ii. col. 145. D.j 


but, a promise against Defection, and also a promise of Assistance. 181 


divine truth, and so making the Church absolutely infallible, 
that is neither a true nor a safe sense of this scripture. And 
it is very remarkable, that whereas this text hath been so 
much beaten upon by writers of all sorts, there is no one 
Father of the Church for twelve hundred years after Christ, 
the counterfeit or partial Decretals of some Popes excepted, 
that ever concluded the infallibility of the Church out of this 
place ; but her non-deficiency, that hath been, and is, justly 


Srcrron 
REG 


deduced hence. 


And here I challenge A. C. and all that 
party to show the contrary, if they can. 


The next place of 


Scripture is 8. Matthew xxvii., the promise of Christ that 


“He will be with them to the end of the world.” 


But this, 


in the general voice of the Fathers of the Church, is a pro- 
mise of assistance and protection, not of an infallibility, of 


the Church.f 


And Pope Leo himself enlarges this presence 


and providence of Christ to all those things which He com- 


mitted to the execution of His ministers. 


f [Sciens ergo Dominus non adver- 
sus carnem et sanguinem nobis pug- 
nam esse, sed adversus mundi hujus 
potentes et nequitias spiritales, ait 
Evangelia consummans: Ecce Ego 
vobiscum ὅθ. Adest enim: et cum 
fideliter invocatur, per naturam suam 
presens est. Spiritus namque est 
omnia penetrans et continens. Non 
enim secundum nos corporalis est, ut 
cum alicubi adsit, absit aliunde: sed 
virtute presenti, et se quacunque est 
aliquid porrigenti, cum replente omnia 
ejus Spiritu in omnibus sit, tamen ei 
qui in eum eredat adsistit. Nam et 
tribus vel duobus in nomine suo con- 
gregatis erit preesens, et in circuitu 
populi sui est ex hoc nune et usque in 
zeternum.|—S. Hilar. [Pictay.Tractat 1 
in Psalmum exxiy. [cap. 6. Op., col. 
405. A. ed. Benedict.j|—[Ecce Ego 
vobiscum &c. Id est, cum sicut oves 
introieritis in medium luporum, no- 
lite de vestra infirmitate trepidare, 
sed de mea potestate confidite, qui vos 
usque ad consummationem seculi in 
omni hoc opere non derelinquam : non 
hoe ut nihil patiamini, sed, quod 
multo majus est, preestiturus ut nulla 
seevientium crudelitate superemini. 
In mea enim potestate preedicabitis, 
&c.|—S. Prosp. [Aquitan. seu potius 
ignoti auctoris,] de vocat. [omn.] gen- 
tium, lib. 11, cap. 2. [inter Op., 5. Pro- 
sper. p. 888. col. 2. D. ed. Paris. 1711.] 
—[Ut autem noverint corda fidelium 


But no word of 


habere se, unde ad supernam sapien- 
tiam spretis mundi cupiditatibus va- 
leant elevari, spondet nobis Dominus 
preesentiam suam, dicens: Ecce Ego 
vobiscum &c....Implet ergo Jesus 
proprietatem nominis sui: et qui as- 
cendit in ceelos, non deserit adoptatos : 
qui sedet ad dexteram Patris idem 
totius habitator est corporis: et ipse 
deorsum confortat ad patientiam, qui 
seorsum invitat ad gloriam.]—S. Leon. 
Magn. Serm. ii. de Resurrect. Domini, 
cap. 3. [Serm. Ixxii. (al. Ixx.) Op., 
tom. i. col. 286. ed. Ballerini. |—Ht, 
[Unde quia non deserit ecclesiam suam 
divina protectio, dicente Domino: 
Eece ego vobiscum &e.—{Id.] Epist. 
xxxi. [Hpist. lx. (al. xlviii.) ad Pul- 
cheriam Augustam, Op., tom. i. col. 
982.|—[Jesus igiter noster solem stare 
fecit, non tune solum, sed multo magis 
modo in adventu suo, dum nos bellum 
gerimus adyersus vitiorum gentes, et 
colluctamur adversus principes, et po- 
testates, et rectores harum tenebra- 
rum, adversus spiritualia nequitiee in 
ceelestibus. Sol nobis justitiz indesi- 
nenter assistif, nec deserit unquam 
nos, nec festinat occumbere, quia Ipse 
dixit: Eece Ego vobiscum X&e.|—S. 
Isidor. [ Hispalens. Mysticorum expo- 
sitiones Sacramentorum, seu, Queest. 
in Vet. Test.,] in Josue cap. xii. [2. 
Op., tom. v. p. 486. ed. Lorenzane, 
Rome, 1802.] 

5. [Cui utique operi incessabiliter 


Matt. 
XVII aly 


182 Inconsistency in alleying S. Luke xxii. both of 5. Peler and of the Ch. 


Conrerence infallibility is to be found there. And indeed since Christ, 
Freang, according to His promise, is present with His ministers in all 
these things, and that one and a chief of these “all” is the 
preaching of His word to the people; it must follow that 
Christ should be present with all His ministers that preach 
His word, to make them infallible: which daily experience 
tells us is not so. The third place urged by A. C. is 8. Luke 
xxii., where the prayer of Christ will effect no more than His 
promise hath performed ; neither of them implying an infal- 
libility for or m the Church against all errors whatsoever. 
And this, almost all his own side confess, is spoken either of 
1 {sueees- S. Peter’s person only, or of him and his successors, or' both." 
sors wot’ Of the Church it is not spoken, and therefore cannot prove 
an unerring power in it. For how can that place prove the 
Church cannot err, which speaks not at all of the Church ? 
And it is observable, too, that when the divines of Paris 
expounded this place, that Christ here prayed for 5. Peter, 
as he represented the whole Catholic Church, and obtained 
for it that the faith of the Catholic Church nunguam deficeret, 
“should never so err as quite to fall away,” Bellarmine is 
so stiff for the Pope, that he says expressly, “This exposition 
of the Parisians is false,” and that this text cannot be meant 
of the Catholic Church.t Not be meant of it? Then, 


Luke xxii. 
29 
Un. 


ipse Salvator intervenit,] nec unquam 
ab his abest, quee ministris suis exe- 
quenda commisit, [dicens: Ecce Ego 
vobiscum We. ut si quid per servitutem 
nostram bono ordine et gratulando 
impletur effectu, non ambigamus per 
Spiritum Sanctum fuisse donatum. | 
—S. Leon. Magn. Epist. xci. cap. 2. 
[Epist. eviil. (al. lxxxili.) ad 'heo- 
dorum Episcop. Forojul. Op., tom. i. 
col. 1174. ed. Ballerini. ] 

h Est igitur tertia [expositio vera, 
quod Dominus duo privilegia Petro 
impetraverit. Unum, ut ipse non pos- 
set unquam veram fidem amittere, 
quantumvis tentaretur a diabolo... 
alterum privilegium est, ut ipse tan- 
quam pontifex non posset unquam 
docere aliquid contra fidem, sive, ut 
in sede ejus nunquam inveniretur, qui 
doceret contra veram fidem. Ex qui- 
bus privilegiis, primum fortasse non 
manavit ad posteros: at secundum 
sine dubio manayvit ad posteros, sive 
successores.] — Bellarmin. de Rom. 
Pontif. lib. iv. eap. 3. ὃ 4. Op., tom. i. 


col. 806. C.] He understood the place 
of both 8. Peter and his successors. 

1 (Qui locus, (sc. Simon, Simon, 
ecce Satanas &c.) tribus modis exponi 
solet. Prima expositio est quorundam 
Parisiensium, quod Dominus hie ora- 
verit pro ecclesia universali, sive pro 
Petro ut totius ecclesix figuram gere- 
bat; et hoc impetrasse, ut fides Eccle- 
siz catholicee nunquam deficiat: que 
expositio si ita intelligeretur, ut dice- 
ret immediate oratum esse pro capite 
Ecclesiae, et consequenter pro toto cor- 
pore, quod per caput repreesentatur, 
vera esset; sed non ita ipsi intelli- 
gunt: volunt enim pro sola Ecclesia 
esse oratum.] Quze expositio falsa est. 
Primo, quia [Dominus unam tantum 
personam designavit, dicens bis: Si- 
mon, Simon, et addens toties prono- 
men secundz persone Pro te, Fides 
tua, et Tu, Fratres tuos.|—Bellarmin. 
ibid. § 1, 2. [col. 805. C.] And he 
says it is false because the Parisians ex- 
pounded it of the Church only. Volunt 
enim pro sola Heclesia esse oratuim. 


The promised Comforter was to guide the Ch. into all necessary Truth. 188 


certainly, it ought not to be alleged as proof of it, as here 10 Snctiow 
is by A.C. The fourth place named by A. C. is 8. John xiv. ak 
and the consequent place to it, 5. John xvi. These places eae p. 57. 
contain another promise of Christ concerning the coming of 16, τ 
the Holy Ghost. Thus, “that the Comforter shall abide John xvi. 
with them for ever;” that this Comforter is “the Spirit of τ 
truth ;” and that this “ Spirit of truth will lead them into all 

truth.” Now this promise, as it is applied to the Church, 
consisting of all believers which are and have been since 

Christ appeared in the flesh, including the Apostles, is 
absolute, and without any restriction. For the Holy Ghost 

did lead them into all truth, so that no error was to be found 

in that Church. But as it is applicable to the whole Church 
militant in all succeeding times, so the promise was made 

with a limitation,! namely, that the Blessed Spirit should 

abide with the Church for ever, and lead it into all truth ; 

but not simply into all curious truth—no, not in or about 

And 

against this truth the whole Catholic Church cannot err, 
keeping herself to the direction of the Scripture, as Christ 

For in this very place where the pro- 


the faith—but into all truth necessary to salvation. 


hath appointed her. 
mise is made, that the Holy Ghost “shall teach you all 
things,” it is added, that “ He shall bring all things to their John xiv. 
remembrance.””? What? simply all things? No: but “all a: 
things which Christ had told them.” So there is a limita- 

tion put upon the words by Christ Himself. And if the 
Church will not err, it must not ravel curiously into unneces- 


k Field, “Of the Church,” book iv. 
chap. 2. [p. 844. “1f we speak of the 
Church, as it comprehendeth the whole 
number of believers, that are, and have 
been since Christ appeared in the 
flesh, it is absolutely] free from all 
error and ignorance of divine things, 
[that are to be known by revelation. 
Quid enim latuit Petrunr &c. (lib. de 
preescript. heeret.) For as Tertullian 
saith rightly and aptly to this pur- 
pose, What was hidden and concealed 
from Peter, upon whom Christ pro- 
mised to build His Church, and to 
whom He gave the keys of the king- 
dom of heaven? from John the disciple 
He so dearly loved, which leaned on 
His breast at the mystical supper ? 
and the rest of that blessed company ? 
that should after be manifested to 


succeeding generations? Sothat touch- 
ing the Church taken in this sort, 
there is no question, but it is abso- 
lutely led into the knowledge of all 
truth, without any mixture of igno- 
rance, error, or danger of being de- 
ceived.” | 

1 And Theodoret proceeds farther, 
and says, Nec divini prophete, nee 
admirabiles Apostoli omnia praescive- 
rant. Queecunque enim expediebant, 
ea illis significavit gratia Spiritus. 
[Οὔτε οἱ θεῖοι προφῆται, οὔτε of θεσπέ- 
σιοι ἀπόστολοι πάντα προήδεσαν᾽ boa 
γὰρ ἐλυσιτελεῖ, προεδήλου αὐτοῖς ἡ χά- 
pis τοῦ mvevuaros.|—Theodoret. [ρ]- 
scop. Cyren.| in 1 Epist.ad Timoth. iii. 
14,15. [Op., tom. iii. p, 477. ed. Paris. 
1642.] 


184 


Particular Churches deferring to SS. and Primitive Ch., may 


Coxrrrence sary truths, which are out of the promise, nor follow any 


WIth 
Fisuer. 


ποὺ "τς 
Edit. 1673 
and 1686. ] 


A. C. p. 57. 


A.C. p. 58. 


other guide than the doctrine which Christ hath left behind 
Him to govern it. For if it will come to the end, it must 
keep in the way. And Christ, Who promised the Spirit 
should lead, hath no where promised that it shall follow 
its leader, “into all truth,” and at least’ infallibly, unless you 
will limit, as before. So, no one of these places can make 
good A. C.’s assertion, “that the whole Church cannot err 
generally in any one point of divine truth.” In absolute 
foundations she cannot :™ in deductions and superstructures 
she may. 

VI.—Now, to all that I have said concerning the “right 
which particular Churches have to reform themselves, when 
the General Church cannot for impediments, or will not for 
negligence,” which I have proved at large before,” all the 
answer that A. C. gives, is: First, Quo judice? ‘“ Who shall 
be judge?” And that shall be the Scripture and the 
primitive Church;° and by the rules of the one, and to 
the integrity of the other, both in faith and manners, any 
particular Church may safely reform itself. 

VII.—Secondly, “That no reformation in faith can be 
needful in the General Church, but only in particular 
Churches. In which case also,’ he saith, “ particular 
Churches may not take upon them to judge and condemn 
others of errors in faith.’ Well, how far forth reformation 
even of faith may be necessary in the General Church, I 
have expressed already.? And for particular Churches, 1 
do not say, “that they must take upon them to judge or 
condemn others of error in faith.’ That which 1 say, is, 
“They may reform themselves.” Now I hope, “to reform 
themselves,” and “to condemn others,” are two different 
works ; unless it fall out so, that by reforming themselves, 
they do by consequence condemn any other, that is guilty 
in that pomt in which they reform themselves ; and so far 


m Sect. xxi. No. 5. [ubisup. p. 155. ] 

= Sect. xxiv. No.1, 2, &c. [ubi sup. 
pp. 167, 168.] 

© Si de [aliqua] modica queestione 
disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in 
antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in 
quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab 
eis de presenti questione sumere 
quod certum et [re] liquidum est? 


Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem 
scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne 
oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, 
{quam tradiderunt iis quibus com- 
mittebant Ecclesias?]—S. Irenzeus, 
contra heereses, lib. ili. cap. 4. [Op., 
p. 205. ed. Grabe.] 

P Sect. xxv. No. 4. [ubisup. p. 178.] 


reform themselves, without having recourse to the Ch. of Rome. 185 


to judge and condemn others, is not only lawful, but  Sxcrioy 
necessary. A man that lives religiously, doth not by and ban 
by sit in judgment, and condemn with his mouth all pro- 
fane livers; but yet, while he is silent, his very life con- 
demns them. And I hope, in this way of judicature, A. C. 
dares not say it 1s unlawful for a particular Church or man 
to condemn another. And farther, whatsoever A. C. can 
say to the contrary, there are divers cases, where heresies 
are known and notorious, in which it will be hard to say, 
(as he doth,) That one particular Church must not judge or A.C. p. 58. 
condemn another, so far forth, at least, as to abhor and 
protest against the heresy of it. 
VIII.—Thirdly, If one particular Church may not judge 
or condemn another, what must then be done, where par- 
ticulars need reformation? What? Why then A. C. tells 
us: “That particular Churches must in that case, as A.C. p. 58. 
Trenzeus intimateth, have recourse to the Church of Rome, 
which hath more powerful principality, and to her bishop,1 
who is chief pastor of the whole Church, as being S. Peter’s 
successor, ‘to whom Christ promised the keys, for whom Matt. xvi. 
He prayed ‘ his faith might not fail, and whom He charged to Luke xxii. 
‘feed and govern the whole flock.’ And this,” A. C. tells us, John xxi. 
“he shall never refuse to do in such sort, as that this neg- 
lect shall be a just cause for any particular man or Church, 
under pretence of reformation in manners or faith, to make 
a schism or separation from the whole general Church.” 
IX.— Well, first you see where A. C. would have us. “If 
any particular Churches differ in pomts of divine truth, they 
must not judge or condemn each other,” saith he. No, 
take heed of that in any case; that is the office of the 
universal Church. And yet he will have it, “That Rome, 
which is but a particular Church, must and ought’ judge 411 ᾿ [ought 
other particulars.” ieee 
X.—Secondly, he tells us this is so, “ Because the Church 
of Rome hath more powerful principality than other par- 
ticular Churches, and that her bishop is pastor of the whole 
Church.” To this I answer, that it is most true indeed ; 
the Church of Rome hath had, and hath yet, “more powerful 


a And after he saith, p. 58. “That be, the judge of particular Churches in 
the Bishop of Rome is, and ought to _ this case.” 


Primacy of the Roman Patriarch a primacy of order. 
2 


ΟΟΝΡΕΒΕΝΟΝ principality” than any other particular Church: but she 


hath not this power from Christ. ‘The Roman patriarch, by 
ecclesiastical constitutions, might perhaps have a primacy of 
order ; but for principality of power, the patriarchs were as 
even, as equal, as the Apostles" were before them. The 
truth is, this “more powerful principality” the Roman bishops® 
got under the emperors, after they became Christian ;! and 
they used the matter so, that they grew big enough to 
oppose, nay to depose, the emperors, by the same power 
which they had given them. And after this, other par- 
ticular Churches, especially here in the West, submitted 
themselves to them for succour and protection’s sake. And 
this was one main cause which swelled Rome into this “ more 
powerful principality,” and not any right given by Christ to 
make that prelate’ pastor of the whole Church. I know 
Bellarmine makes much ado about it, and will needs fetch 
it out of S. Augustine," who says indeed, “That in the 


τ Respondeo: Pontificatum [sum- 
mum diserte positum ab Apostolo in 
illis verbis: Et Ipse dedit quosdam 
quidem Apostolos: et clarius 1 Cor. 
xii. 28, ubi ait: Et Ipse posuit in 
ecclesia primum Apostolos, &e. Si 
quidem ] summa potestas ecclesiastica 
non solum data est Petro, sed etiam 
aliis Apostolis: omnes enim poterant 
dicere illud §. Pauli, [Instantia 
mea quotidiana,] sollicitudo omnium 
Keclesiarum, 2 Cor. xi. 28.—Bellar- 
min. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 9. 
[$45. Op., tom. i. col. 537. D.] Where 
then is the difference between S. Peter 
and the rest ? In this, saith Bellarmine, 
(Ibid.) Sed Petro data est summa 
potestas ecclesiastica ut ordinario 
pastori, cui perpetuo succederetur ; 
aliis vero, tanquam delegatis, quibus 
non succederetur. This is handsomely 
said to men easy of belief. But 
that the highest power ecclesiastical, 
confessed to be given to the other 
apostles as well as to S. Peter, was 
given to 5. Peter only, as to an 
ordinary pastor, whose successors 
should have the same power, which 
the successors of the rest should 
not have, can never be proved out of 
Scripture. Nay, (I will give them 
their own latitude,) it can never be 
proved by any tradition of the whole 
Catholic Church. And till it be 
proved, Bellarmine’s handsome ex- 


pression cannot be believed by me ; 
for S. Cyprian hath told me long 
since, that Episcopatus unus est, (for 
as much as belongs to the calling,) as 
wellas Apostolatus.—Lib. desimplicit. 
preelatorum, [S. Cyprian’s words are: 
Nisi si per Episcopus tibi videtur gui 
episcopo in ecclesia a sedium co- 
episcopis facto, adulter atque ex- 
traneus episcopus fieri a desertoribus 
per ambitum nititur, et cum sit a 
Christo una ecclesia per totum mun- 
dum in multa membra divisa, item 
episcopatus unus episcoporum multo- 
rum concordi numerositate diffusus, 
ille post Dei traditionem, post con- 
nexam et ubique conjunctam Catho- 
licee ecclesiz unitatem humanam 
conetur ecclesiam facere, et per pluri- 
mas civitates novos apostolos suos 
mittat, &c.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lii. ad 
Antonianum, Op., p. 73. ed. Benedict. ] 

* Sect. xxv. No.12.[videinfra. p.194. | 

* [Bellarmin.] de Rom. Pont. lib. i. 
cap. ix. ὃ 46. [col. 538. B. ubi sup. 
note *.| 

" (Erat etiam (Carthago) transmari- 
nis vicina regionibus et fama celeber- 
rima nobilis: unde non mediocris 
utique auctoritatis habebat episco- 
pum, qui posset non curare conspiran- 
tem multitudinem inimicorum, cum 
se videret et] Romane Ecclesia, in 
qua semper Apostolicee Cathedrze 
viguit principatus, [et caeteris terris, 


S. Augustine, as alleged by Bellarmine, explained. 


Church of Rome there did always flourish the principality of 
an apostolic chair;” or, if you will, the apostolic chair in 
relation to the West and South parts of the Church, all the 
other four apostolic chairs being in the East. Now, this no 
man denies, that understands the state and story of the 
Church ; and Calvin* confesses it expressly. Nor is the 
word principatus so great, nor were the bishops of those 
times so little, as that principes and principatus are not com- 
monly given them, both by the GreekY and the Latin 
Fathers of this great and learnedest age of the Church, 
made up of the fourth and fifth hundred years; always 
understanding principatus of their spiritual power, and within 
the limits of their several jurisdictions, which perhaps now 
and then they did occasionally exceed. And there is not 
one word in S. Augustine, “That this principality of the 
Apostolic chair in the Church of Rome was then, or ought 
to be now, exercised over the whole Church of Christ,” as 
Bellarmine imsinuates there, and as A. C. would have it 
here. And to prove that S. Augustine did not intend by 
principatus here, to give the Roman bishop any power out of 
his own limits, (which God knows were far short of the 


unde evyangelium ad ipsam Africam 
venit, per communicatorias literas 
esse conjunctum, ubi paratus esset 
causam suam dicere, si adversarii 
ejus ab eo illas Ecclesias alienare 
conarentur.] — 8. Augustin. Hpist. 
clxii. [Epist. xliii. ad Glorium et 
Eleusium, ὅθ. cap. 3. Op., tom. 1]. 
col. 91. 1.1 

x Opinio [enim illa, que nescio 
quomodo] invaluerat, fundatam [οὐ 
constitutam] eam fuisse Hcclesiam 
Petri ministerio, [ad conciliandam 
gratiam et auctoritatem plurimum 
valebat;] itaque in occidente sedes 
Apostolica, honoris causa, vocabatur. 
—Calvin. Instit. lib. iv. cap. 6. ὃ 16. 
[Op., tom. viii. p. 298.] 

y [Non enim apostolicus sermo pro- 
bitatis honestatisque praeceptis homi- 
nem tantum seculo conformat ad 
vitam, neque rursum per doctrine 
scientiam scribam synagoge instituit 
ad legem: sed perfectum] ecclesiz 
principem [perfectis maximarum 
virtutum bonis instituit, ut et vita 
ejus ornetur docendo, et doctrina 
vivendo. |—S. Hilar. de Trinitate, lib. 
viii. [in] princip. [eap. i. Op., col. 947. 
B. ed. Benedict.| And he speaks of a 


bishop in general.—Ascribuntur epi- 
scopo δυναστεία, βῆμα καὶ ἀρχὴ, im- 
perium, thronus, et principatus ad 
regimen animarum.—Greg. Nazianz. 
Orat. xvii. [Kal 6 τοῦ Χριστοῦ νόμος 
ὑποτίθησιν ὑμᾶς TH ἐμῇ δυναστείᾳ καὶ 
τῷ ἐμῷ βήματι ἄρχομεν γὰρ καὶ αὐτοί" 
προσθήσω δὲ ote καὶ τὴν μείζονα καὶ 
τελεωτέραν ἀρχήν ----᾽Ὁὃ. Greg. Nazianz. 
Orat. xvii. (ad cives Nazianzenos,) 
cap. 8. ΟΡ πη tomy 1. pps 8225) 323. 
HK. A. ed. Benedict.]|— Et, τοιαύτη 
ἀρχὴ, hujusmodi imperium. And he 
also speaks of a bishop. [ἄρχοντος δὲ 
καὶ προστάτου κακίαν, καὶ μάλιστα 
τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρχὴν, τὸ μὴ πολὺ τῶν 
πολλῶν προέχειν.) --- [ἅ. Οταῦ. xx. 
[3]. xliii. (Orat. Funeb. in S. Basil.) 
cap. 38. Op.,tom. i. p. 800. B.] Nor 
were these any titles of pride in 
bishops then. For 8. Greg. Nazianz. 
who challenges these titles to himself, 
Orat. xvii. was so devout, so mild, 
and so humble, that rather than the 
peace of the Church should be 
broken, he freely resigned the great 
patriarchate of Constantinople, and 
retired ; and this in the First Council 
of Constantinople, and the Second 
General. 


187 


SECTION 
XOXOVE 


188 


Independence of the African Church in 8S. Augustine’s time. 


Conrerence Whole Church,) I shall make it most manifest out of the 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


very same epistle. “For afterwards,” saith S. Augustine, 
“when the pertinacity of the Donatists could not be re- 
strained by the African bishops only,’ they gave them leave 
to be heard by foreign bishops.” And after that he hath these 
words: “ And yet peradventure Melchiades, the bishop of the 
Roman Church, with his colleagues, the transmarine bishops, 
non debuit, ought not usurp to himself this judgment, which 
was determined by seventy African bishops, Tigisitanus 
sitting primate. And what will you say if he did not 
usurp this power? For the emperor, being desired, sent 
bishops judges, which should sit with him, and determine 
what was just upon the whole cause.”* In which passage 
there are very many things observable: As first, that the 
Roman prelate came not in, till there was leave for them to 
go to “transmarine bishops.” Secondly, that if the pope had 
come in without this leave, it had been an “ usurpation.” 
Thirdly, that when he did thus come in, not by his own 
proper authority but by leave, there were other bishops 
made “judges with him.” Fourthly, that these other bishops 
were “appointed and sent by the emperor,” and his power ; 
that which the pope will least of all endure. Lastly, lest 
the pope and his adherents should say this was an usurpation 
in the emperor, S. Augustine” tells us a little before, in the 
same epistle still, “that this doth chiefly belong ad curam 
ejus, to the emperor’s care and charge, and that he is to give 


z [Itaque aut istas omnes causas, 
quas clades turbulentissimi temporis 
inflixit ecclesize, Deo judici dimitta- 
mus: aut si aliqui in vobis sunt, qui 
certa istorum crimina ita noverint, 
ut ea facile valeant edocere, negantes- 
que convincere, et talibus communi- 
care formidant,] pergant ad fratres 
et collegas nostros transmarinarum 
ecelesiarum episcopos, [et ibi prius 
de istorum factis et contumacia con- 
querantur, quod ad judicium colle- 
garum <Afrorum male sibi conscii 
venire noluerunt, ut inde illis denun- 
cietur ut veniant, ibique objectis 
respondeant.|— 5. Augustin, Epist. 
elxii. [Epist. xliii. cap. 8. col. 92. B. 
ut sup. note *.] 

a An forte non debuit Romane 
ecclesiz Melchiades episcopus cum 
collegis transmarinis episcopis illud 


sibi usurpare judicium, quod ab Afris 
septuaginta, ubi primas Tigisitanus 
preesedit, fuerat terminatum? Quid 
quod nee ipse usurpavit? Rogatus 
quippe Imperator, judices misit 
episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, et de 
tota illa causa, quod justum videretur, 
statuerent.—S. Augustin. Ibid. [cap. 
5. col. 94. D. ut sup. note ἃ. 

b [An forte sicut quidam dixit, 
quod quidem cum vobis diceretur, 
displicuit; sed tamen preetermitten- 
dum non est: ait enim quidam, 
Non debuit episcopus proconsulari 
judicio purgari: quasi vero ipse sibi 
hoe comparaverit, ac non imperator 
ita queeri jusserit;] ad cujus curam, 
de qua rationem Deo redditurus est, 
res illa maxime pertinebat. — S. 
Augustin. Epist. elxii. [eap. 4. col. 93. 
G. ut sup. note *.] 


All Patriarchs supreme within their own jurisdiction. 


an account to God for 10. And Melchiades did sit and judge 
the business with all Christian prudence and moderation. 
So at this time the Roman prelate was not received as 
pastor of the whole Church, say A. C. what he please. Nor 
had he any supremacy over the other patriarchs; and for 
this, were all other records of antiquity silent, the civil law 
is proof enough, and that is a monument of the primitive 
Church. The text there 15: A patriarcha non datur ap- 
pellatio,, “ From a patriarch there les no appeal.” No 
appeal. Therefore every patriarch was alike supreme in 
his own patriarchate. Therefore the pope then had no 
supremacy over the whole Church. ‘Therefore certainly not 
then received as universal pastor. And 8. Gregory himself, 
speaking of appeals, and expressly citing the laws them- 
selves, says plainly: “That the patriarch is to put a final 
end to those causes, which come before him by appeal from 
bishops and archbishops ;””* but then he adds, ‘That where 
there is no metropolitan nor patriarch of that diocese, there 
they are to have recourse to the see apostolic, as being the 


head of all Churches.’ Ὁ 


Where first this implies plainly, 


That if there be a metropolitan or a patriarch in those 


¢ Nam contra horum antistitum 
(de patriarchis loquitur) sententias, 
non esse locum appellationi a majori- 
bus nostris constitutum est. — Cod. 
(Justiniani,] lib. i. tit. iv. 1. 29. ex 
editione Gothofredi. [κατὰ γὰρ δὴ 
τῶν τοιούτων ἐπισκόπων ἀποφάσεων 
οὐκ εἶναι χώραν ἐκκλήτῳ τοῖς πρὸ 
ἡμῶν νενομοθέτηται" --Ῥ.- 29. ed. Van 
Leeuwen. Amstel. 1663.]|—[Et] si non 
rata habuerit utraque pars que judi- 
cata sunt, tunc beatissimus patriarcha 
diceceseos illius, inter eos audiat, [et 
illa determinet que _ ecclesiasticis 
canonibus et legibus consonant: ] 
nulla parte ejus sententize contradi- 
cere valente. — Authen. Collat. ix. 
tit. xv. [vi.] cap. 22. [Si quis vero, 
Novell. Justiniani, exxili. p. 173. ed. 
Van Leeuwen. Καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐμμείνῃ ἑκάτε- 
ρον μέρος τοῖς κεκριμένοις, τηνικαῦτα, 
ὁ μακαριώτατος πατριάρχης ἐκείνης τῆς 
διοικήσεως μεταξὺ αὐτῶν ἀκροάσθω, 
κακεῖνα ὁριζέτω, ἅτινα τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστι- 
κοῖς κανόσι καὶ τοῖς νόμοις συνάδει" 
οὐδενὸς μέρους κατὰ τῆς ψήφου αὐτοῦ 
ἀντιλέγειν δυναμένου" 

4 [Si autem δαὺ ἃ clerico aut laico 
quocunque aditio contra episcopum 


fiat, propter quamlibet causam, apud 
sanctissimum ejus metropolitam, 
secundum sanctas regulas et nostras 
leges causa judicetur. Et si quis 
judicatis contradixerit, ad _beatissi- 
mum Archiepiscopuin et Patriarcham 
diceceseos illius referatur causa,] et 
ille (scil. Patriarcha) secundum ¢a- 
nones et leges [huic] preebeat finem. 
(And there he cites the Novell itself: 
[viz. Auth. Coll. ix. tit. vi. cap. 22. Si 
quis vero, Novell. Justiniani, exxiii. 
p- 173. ed. Van Leeuwen.) —apud ] 
S. Gregor. (Magn. Registri Epistolar. | 
lib. xiii. Indict. 6. Epist. xlv. (al. lvi.) 
[seu Capitulare ii. Imperial.ad Johann. 
defensorem. Op., tom. ii. col. 1254. A. 
B. ed. Benedict. ] 

e [Contra hee] si dictum fuerit, 
quia nec Metropolitanum habeat, nec 
Patriarcham, dicendum est, quia a 
sede apostolica, que omnium Ec- 
clesiarum caput est, causa [hec] 
audienda [ac dirimenda fuerat, sicut 
et preedictus Episcopus petiisse dig- 
noscitur, qui episcopos alieni concilii 
habuit omnino suspectos.|—S. Gregor. 
{Magn.] Ibid. [col. 1254. B.] 


189 


SEcTIon 
ROVE: 


190 


Britain from the first had its own Primate. 


Coxrerence Churches, his judgment is final; and there ought to be no 


WItH 
Fisner. 


appeal to Rome.—Secondly, it is as plain, that im those ancient 
times of the Church Government, Britain was never subject 
to the see of Rome. Tor it was one of the six dioceses’ of 
the West Empire, and had a primate of its own: Nay, 
John Capgrave, one of your own, and learned for those 
times, and long before him Wilham of Malmesbury, tell us, 
“That Pope Urban the Second, at the Council held at 
Bari in Apulia, accounted my worthy predecessor 8. Anselm 
as his own compeer, and said, he was as the apostolic and 
patriarch of the other world.” (So he then termed this 
island.) Now, the Britons having a primate of their own 
(which is greater than a metropolitan,) yea, a patriarch," if 
you will, he could not be appealed from to Rome, by 8. 
Gregory’s own doctrine.—Thirdly, it will be hard for any 
man to prove there were any Churches then in the world, 
which were not under some, either patriarch or metropolitan. 


f Notitia provinciarum  occiden- 
talium per Guidum Pancirollum, 
lib. ii. cap. 48. [p. 149. ed. Lugd. 
1608. This statement of Pancirollus, 
refers only to the civil and military 
divisions of the empire, and not, as it 
appears, to any ecclesiastical dignities. 
The six Vicars of the Western Empire 
were, Urbis Rome, Italia, Africe, 
Hispanie, Galliz, Britanniarum. | 

s [Leetatur autem apostolicus in 
ejus adventu: et multo in laudem 
ejus prosecutus, virum virtutis ac 
totius religionis illum esse contestans 
ait: Eundem] illum cunctis liberalium 
artium disciplinis eruditum pro magis- 
tro teneamus, et quasi comparem, 
velut alterius orbis Apostolicum et 
Patriarcham, [jure venerandum cen- 
ΕΘ ΤΟΥ͂Θ «0. 0 wae In concilio autem 
apud Barrum celebrato Anselmus a 
Papa persuasus Greecos in processione 
Spiritus Sancti, utpote qui a Patre 
non a Filio procedere astruebant 
errantes, rationabili atque catholica 
disputatione confutavit: et magnus 
apud omnes habitus est, et veneratione 
dignissimus comprobatur.] — Joann. 
Capgray. de vitis Sanctorum, in vita 
S. Anselmi: [Nova legenda Angliz, 
fol. xix. verso, col. 1,2. ed. Wynkyn 
de Worde, 1516.|—Et, Guil. Malmes- 
buriens. de Gestis Pontificum Anglor. 
flib. i.] p. 223. ed. Francof. 1601. 
[apud Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores, 


p- 127. ed. Savile, Londin. 1596. 
Ut ergo ventum ad concilium est..... 
exciderat animo summi pontificis, 
ingruente tumultu, ut ei (sc. Anselmo,) 
locum delegaret. Sed erroris admoni- 
tus est...... et Anselmi recordatus 
exclamat...... Pater et Magister 
Anselme <Anglorum  archiepiscope 
ubi es? IJlle ubi se vocari audivit, 
in pedes constitit. Quem apostolicus 
compellans, Nune, inquit, magister 
opus est scientia, opus eloquentiz 
tue opera: veni, ascende hue, et 
defende matrem tuam_ ecclesiam, 
quam Greeci labefactare conantur: 
succurre ergo quasi a Deo huc missus, 
Continuo cuncti astantes, et assidentes 
oculos et ora in eum conversi, per- 
cunctari quis esset, annitentibusque 
proximis ad consessum apostolici 
levatus, sedere jussus Juxta Romanum 
archidiaconum, cui ante papam 
sedere moris est. Includamus, inquit, 
hune in orbe nostro, quasi alterius 
orbis Papam ] 

h {Prima sedes episcoporum post 
Christianitatem Anglorum, Cantuarie 
habita est, et habetur...... 7... 1|ἢ 
(Cantuarize, i.e.) prima sedes archi- 
episcopi habetur, qui est totius Anglice 
Primas et Patriarcha.—Guil. Malmes- 
buriensis in Prolog. lib. i. de Gestis 
Pontificum Anglorum, p. 195, [ubi sup. 
p- 111. ed. Londin. 1596.] 


Alleged Separation between the African and Roman Churches. 


19] 


Fourthly, if any such were, it is gratis dictum, and im- ϑεστιον 


possible to be proved, that all such Churches, wherever 
seated in the world, were obliged to depend on Rome. For 
manifest it is, that the bishops which were ordained in 
places without the limits of the Roman Empire, which 
places they commonly called barbarous,’ were all to be 
ordained,—and therefore, most probable, to be governed,—by 
the patriarch of Constantinople. And for Rome’s being the 
head of all Churches, I have said enough to that in divers 
parts of this discourse. 

XI.—And since I am thus fallen upon the Church of 
Africa, I shall borrow another reason from the practice of 
that Church, why, by principatus, S. Augustine neither dic 
nor could mean any principality of the Church, or Bishop of 
Rome over the whole Church of Christ. For as the acts of 
Councils and stories go, the African prelates, finding that all 
succeeding popes were not of Melchiades’ temper, set them- 
selves to assert their own liberties, and held it out stoutly 
against Zosimus, Boniface the First, and Celestine the First, 
who were successively popes of Rome. At last it was 
concluded in the sixth Council of Carthage, wherein were 
assembled two hundred and seventeen bishops, of which 
S. Augustine himself was one, that they would not give way to 
such a manifest encroachment upon their rights and liberties, 
and thereupon gave present notice to Pope Celestine to for- 
bear sending his officers amongst them, “ lest he should 
seem to induce the swelling pride of the world into the 
Church of Christ.”* And this is said to have amounted into 
a formal separation from the Church of Rome, and to have 
continued for the space of somewhat more than one hundred 





i Preterea et qui sunt ἐν τοῖς 
βαρβαρικοῖς, in barbarico, Episcopi 
[preedictarum diceceseon] ordinentur 
a sanctissimo throno sanctissimee Con- 
stantinopolitanee ecclesiee. [ἔτι δὲ καὶ 
τοῖς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἐπισκόπους τῶν 
προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι 
υἱπὸ τοῦ προειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου 
τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιω- 
τάτης exkAnolas.|—Codex Canonum 
ecclesiz universe, Can. ecevi. [apud 
Biblioth. Juris Canonici Veteris, Jus- 
telli, p. 67. ed. Paris. 1661.] And 
Justellus proves it there at large, that 


by in barbarico, in that Canon, is 
meant, in solo barbarorum.—Annot. 
Ibid. [pp. 94, 95.] 

k [Executores etiam clericos vestros 
quibusque potentibus nolite mittere, 
nolite concedere,| ne fumosum typhum 
seeculi in Hcclesiam Christi, [que 
lucem simplicitatis et humilitatis 
diem, Deum videre cupientibus pra- 
fert,| videamur inducere, &c.— Hpist. 
Cone. Afric. ad Papam [S.] Ceelesti- 
num primum: apud Nicolin. tom. 1. 
Concil. p. 844. [Concil. tom. ii. col. 
1676. A.] 


XXY. 


192 


Documentary Evidence alleged in proof of the fact. 


Conrerence years. Now, that such a separation there was of the African 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


Church from Rome, and a reconciliation after, stands upon 
the credit and authority of two public instruments, extant 
both among the ancient Councils. The one is an Epistle 
from Boniface the Second, in whose time the reconciliation 
to Rome is said to be made by Eulalius, then bishop of Car- 
thage ; but the separation, instigante diabolo, by the “ tempta- 
tion of the devil.”! The other is an Exemplar Precum, or 
copy of the petition of the same Eulalius, in which he damns 
and curses all those his predecessors which went against the 
Church of Rome.“ Amongst which, Eulalius must needs 
curse 5. Augustine; and Pope Boniface accepting this sub- 
mission’ must acknowledge that S. Augustine and the rest 
of that Council deserved this curse, and died under it, as 
violating recte fider regulam, “ the rule of the right faith,’”— 
so the Exemplar Precum begins—by refusing the Pope’s 
authority. I will not deny but that there are divers reasons 
given by the learned Romanists and Reformed writers for 
and against the truth and authority of both these instru- 
ments. But because this is too long to be examined here, 
I will say but this, and then make my use of it to my 
present purpose, giving the Church of Rome free leave to 
acknowledge these instruments to be true, or false, as 
they please. That which I shall say is this: These instru- 
ments are let stand in all editions of the Councils and 
Kpistles Decretal; as, for example, in the old edition by 
Isidore, anno 1524; and in another old edition of them, 
printed anno 1530; and in that which was published by 
P. Crabbe, anno 1538; and in the edition of Valentinus 
Joverius, anno 1555; and in that by Surius, anno 1567 ; 
and in the edition at Venice by Nicolinus, anno 1585 ; and 
in all of these without any note or censure upon them. And 
they are in the edition of Binius too, anno 1618; but there is 
a censure upon them to keep a quarter, it may be, with 
Baronius," who was the first, I think, that ever quarrelled 

1 Epist. Bonifacii II.: [de recon- " [Qui igitur semel errore ductus 
ciliatione Carthaginensis ecclesie,| est 5101 persuasit hoc tempore scissam 
apud Nicolin. tom. ii. Concil. p. 544. penitus fuisse Africanam Ecclesiam 
—[Concil. tom. iv. col. 1684.] a Romana (proh nefas !) quam enorme 

m Exemp. Precum: apud Nicolin. excogitavit commentum? Finxit Bo- 


Ibid. p. 545.—[Concil. tom. iv. col. nifacii Seeundi Papz nomine Episto- 
1686. ] Jam ad Eulalium Episcopum Alexan- 


Whether genuine or not, a Dilemma against the Romanists. 


them, and he doth it tartly. And, since, Bellarmine? follows 


the same way, but more doubtfully. This is that which I _ 


had to say: and the use which I shall make of these instru- 
ments, whether they be true or false, is this : They are either 
true or false, that is of necessity. If they be false, then 
Boniface the Second, and his accomplices at Rome, or some 
for them, are notorious forgers,—and that of records of great 
consequence concerning the government and peace of the 
whole Church of Christ, and to the perpetual infamy of that 
see; and all this foolishly and to no purpose. For if there 
were no such separation, as these records mention, of the 
African Churches from the Roman, to what end should 
Boniface or any other counterfeit an epistle of his own, and 
a submission of Eulalius? On the other side, if these in- 
struments be true, as the sixth Council of Carthage against 
all other arguments makes me incline to-believe they are— 
in substance at least, though perhaps not in all circum- 
stances—then it is manifest that the Church of Africa 
separated from the Church of Rome; that this separation 
continued above one hundred years; that the Church of 
Africa made this separation in a National Council of their 
own, which had in it two hundred and seventeen bishops ; 
that this separation was made, for aught appears, only 
because they at Rome were too ready to entertain appeals 
from the Church of Africa, as appears in the case of 
Apiarius,? who then appealed thither; that S. Augustine, 
Eugenius, Fulgentius, and all those bishops and other mar- 
tyrs which suffered in the Vandalic persecution, died in the 
time of this separation ; that if this separation were not just, 
but a schism, then these famous fathers of the Church died, 


drinum de reconciliatione Ecclesiz 
Carthaginensis cum Romana... Ad- 
dit etiam ea de re ab alio EHulalio 
Episcopo Carthaginensi libellum ad 
ipsum Bonifacium pro reconciliatione 
datum... Heee quidem et alia men- 
daciorum frigidus concinnator, sed cal- 
lidus veterator, ibi habet.|—Baronius, 
Annal. ad Ann. 419. No. [92,] 93, 
94. 

° (Sed contra objicit Illyricus Epis- 
tolam Bonifacii II. ad Eulalium Alex- 
andrinum Hpiscopum, et Epistolam 
Eulalii Episcopi Carthaginensis ad 
eundem Bonifacium .. . Respondeo 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


primum :] valde mihi eas Epistolas 
esse suspectas.—Bellarmin. de Rom. 
Pont. lib. ii. cap. 25. [§ 46. Op., tom. i. 
col. 685. D.|—Sed si forte illee Epistolee 
verze sunt, nihil enim affirmo, [sine 
dubio non in eum sensum accipiendz 
sunt, &e.|—Ibid. § ult. [col. 686. A.] 

Pp And so the Council of Carthage 
sent word to Pope Celestine plainly, 
that in admitting such appeals, he 
brake the decrees of the Council of 
Nice. — Epist. Concil. Africani ad 
Ceelestinum, cap. cv. apud Nicolin. 
tom. i. Concil. p. 844. [Concil. tom. 
ii. col. 1675. ] 


O 


193 


Srorron 
XXV. 


194 


Actual Separation from Rome not in itself Schism. 


Coyrrrencs for aught appears, in actual and unrepented schism,‘ and out 


WITH 
FIsHER. 





A.C. p. 58. 


of the Church. And if so, then how comes S. Augustine to 
be, and be accounted, a saint, all over the Christian world, 
and at Rome itself? But if the separation were just, then 
is it far more lawful for the Church of England, by a Na- 
tional Council, to cast off the Pope’s usurpation, as she did,* 
than it was for the African Church to separate; because 
then the African Church excepted only against the pride of 
Rome’ in case of appeals, and two other canons less material ; 
but the Church of England excepts, besides this grievance, 
against many corruptions in doctrine belonging to the faith, 
with which Rome at that time of the African separation was 
not tainted. And I am out of all doubt, that S. Augustine, 
and those other famous men in their generations, durst not 
thus have separated from Rome, had the Pope had “ that 
powerful principality over the whole Church of Christ, and 
that by Christ’s own ordinance,’ and institution, as A. C. 
pretends he had. 

XII.—I told you a little before,' that the popes grew under 
the emperors till they had overgrown them. And now lest 
A. C. should say I speak it without proof, I will give you a 
brief touch of the Church story in that behalf, and that from 
the beginning of the emperors becoming Christians to the 
time of Charles the Great, which contains about five hundred 
years ; for so soon as the emperors became Christian, the 
Church, which before was kept under by persecutions, began 
to be put in better order. For the calling and authority of 
bishops over the inferior clergy, that was “a thing of known 
use and benefit for preservation of unity and peace in the 
Church.” And so much S. Jerome" tells us; though, being 


a4 [Nisi ea epistola falsa omnino 
esse convinci posset, | plane ex ecclesiz 
Catholicee albo expungenda fuissent 
sanctorum Africanorum martyrum ag- 
mina, qui in persecutione Vandalica 
pro fide Catholica [magna gloria cer- 
tantes ... assecuti sunt martyrii pal- 
mam. ]—Baron. Annal. ad Ann. 419. 
No, 938.—Et, Binius in notis ad Epist. 
Bonifacii II. ad Eulalium, [his verbis: 
sc. Que omnia commentitia sunt et 
notorie falsa.—Concil. tom. iy. col. 
1685. ] 

* Sect. xxiv. No.5. [ubisup. p. 173. ] 

* [Zosimus papa ab Africanis per 


legatos petiit, ut tres canones Niczeni 
Concilii executioni mandarent : unum 
de appellationibus episcoporum ad 
Romanum pontificem; alterum, de 
appellationibus presbyterorum et mi- 
norum clericorum ad Episcopos vici- 
nos; tertium, de non eundo ad comi- 
tatum, id est, ne irent Episcopi Afri 
ad aulam Imperatoris. ]—Bellarmin. 
de Rom. Pontif. lib. ii. cap. 25. § 2. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 679. A.] 

t Sect. xxv. No. 10.[ubi sup. p. 186.] 

ἃ Quod autem postea unus electus 
est, qui ceeteris preeponeretur, in schis- 
matis remedium factum est ; ne unus- 


Precedency among Bishops in the Early Church. 


none himself, he was no great friend to bishops. And this was 
so settled in the minds of men from the very infancy of the 
Christian Church, as that it had not been to that time con- 
tradicted by any. So that then there was no controversy 
about the calling; all agreed upon that; the only difficulty 
was to accommodate the places and precedencies of bishops 
among themselves, for the very necessity of order and 
government. To do this, the most equal and impartial way 
was, that “as the Church is in the commonwealth, not the 
commonwealth in it,” as Optatus tells us,* so the honours of 
the Church should follow the honours of the state. And so 
it was insinuated, if not ordered, as appears by the canons 
of the Councils of Chalcedon and Antioch. And this was 
the very fountain of papal greatness, the pope having his resi- 
dence in the great imperial city. But precedency is one thing, 
and authority is another. It was thought fit, therefore— 
though, as 8. Cyprian speaks, episcopatus unus est,’ “the 
calling of a bishop be one and the same,”—that yet among 
bishops there should be a certain subordination and subjec- 
tion. The empire, therefore, being cast into several divisions, 





quisque ad se trahens Christi eccle- 
siam rumperet. Nam et Alexandriz 
a Marco Evangelista, [usque ad Hera- 
clam et Dionysium Episcopos, | presby- 
teri semper unum ex se electum, in 
excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episco- 
pum nominabant.—S. Hieron. in 
Epist. ad Evagrium, [al. Evangelum, 
Op., tom. iv. par. 2. col. 803.] So 
even according to S. Jerome, bishops 
had a very ancient and honourable 
descent in the Church from 8. Mark 
the Evangelist. And about the end 
of the same Epistle he acknowledges 
it, traditionem esse apostolicam, [in 
these words: Et ut sciamus tradi- 
tiones apostolicas sumtas de veteri 
Testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus 
atque Levitz in templo fuerunt, hoe 
sibi episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi 
vindicent in Heclesia—ibid.] Nay 
more than so, he affirms plainly, that 
ubi non est sacerdos non est Ecclesia 
{in these words: Heclesia autem non 
est, que non habet sacerdotes.] — 
S. Hieron. ady. Luciferianos, [Op., 
tom. iv. par. 2. col. 302.] And in 
that place most manifest it is that 
S. Jerome by sacerdos means a bishop. 
For he speaks de sacerdote qui potes- 


tatem habet ordinandi, which, in S. 
Jerome’s own judgment, no mere 
priest had, but a bishop only. [Quid 
enim facit excepta ordinatione epi- 
scopus, quod presbyter non faciat ?]— 
8. Hieron. Epist. ad Evagrium, [al. 
Evangelum, ut sup.]. So even with 
him, no bishop, and no Church, 

x Non enim respublica est in Eccle- 
sia: sed Heclesia in republica [est, id 
est, in imperio Romano. |]—S. Optat. 
[ Milevit. de schism. Donatist. 1 lib. iii. 
{cap. 3. Op., p. 52. ed. Dupin 1 

y Concil. Chalcedon. can. ix. et Actio 
xvi. [Kal γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας 
Ῥώμης, διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν 
ἐκείνην, of πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι 
τὰ πρεσβεῖα' καὶ τῷ αυτῷ σκοπῷ κινού- 
μενοι of ρν΄. θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι, 
τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς νέας 
Ῥώμης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρί- 
ναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμη- 
θεῖσαν πόλιν, καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν 
πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ, 
καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς ἐκείνην 
μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι, κ. T.A.—Con- 
cil. tom. iy. col. 795. 1.] 

2 §. Cyprian. lib. de simplicit. pra- 
latorum, [1. 6. in Epist. ubi sup. p. 186. 
note *. | 


6) τὸ 


195 


SEcTION 
XXIV 


196 


Rise and Progress of the Papal Power. 


Conrrrence Which they then called dioceses, every diocese contained 


WITH 


FIsHEr. 


several provinces, every province several bishoprics. The 
chief of a diocese, in that larger sense, was called ἔξαρχος, 
and sometimes a Patriarch; the chief of a province, a 
Metropolitan. Next, the bishops in their several dioceses, 
as we now use that word. Among these there was effectual 
subjection, respectively grounded upon canon and positive 
law, in their several quarters; but over them none at all: 
all the difference there was but honorary, not authoritative. 
If the ambition of some particular persons did attempt now 
and then to break these bounds, it is no marvel; for no 
calling can sanctify all that have it. And Socrates tells us, 
that in this way the bishops of Alexandria and Rome 
advanced themselves to a great height, πέρα τῆς ἱερωσύνης," 
“even beyond the quality of bishops.” Now, upon view 
of story, it will appear, that what advantage accrued to 
Alexandria, was gotten by the violence of Theophilus, 
patriarch there, a man of exceeding great learning, and of 
no less violence; and he made no little advantage out of 
this, that the Empress Eudoxia used his help for the 
casting of 5. Chrysostom out of Constantinople. But the 
Roman prelates grew, by a steady and constant watchful- 
ness upon all occasions, to increase the honour of that see; 
interposing and assuming to themselves to be vindices 
canonum,» as 8. Gregory Naz[ianzen] speaks, “ defenders and 
restorers of the canons of the Church ;” which was a fair 
pretence, and took extremely well. But yet the world took 
notice of this their aim. For, in all contestations between 
the East and the West, which were nor small nor few, “the 


ἃ (Thorold, (T. C. Laud’s Labyrinth, Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκοπῆς ὁμοίως τῇ ᾿Αλεξ- 
p. 199.) complains of Laud citing αἀνδρέων πέρα τῆς ἱερωσύνης, ἐπὶ δυνα- 
these “three Greek words out οἵ στείων ἤδη πάλαι προελθούσης.] 
Socrates” without any reference. He > Ἕως μὲν οὖν ἣν ἐν μέσῳ θεῖος σκοπὸὺς, 


supplies them from Socrat. Hist. Heel. Οὐδ᾽ ἣν σαφές πω, πῶς ποθ᾽ οἱ τῆς 
lib. vii. cap. 11. (apud Hist. Keel. ἑσπέρας 

Scriptor. tom. ii. p. 356. ed, Reading.) Τὸν ἄνδρα δέξοντ᾽, ἠγριωμένοι τέως, 
and observes that “such ἃ _ place Συγγνωστὸν ἣν πῶς καὶ τὸ λυπεῖν 
clearly shows, not only that Soerates μετρίως 

was an enemy of the Roman Church, Tovs,| ὡς λέγουσι, [τῶν νόμων ἀμύν- 
but ἃ favourer of heretics, as divers Topas. | 

good authors charge him.” The (ut aiunt, sive se jactant esse.)—S. 


passage from Socrates is: Ἄχρι γὰρ Greg. ον Carmen de vita sua, 
τούτου, Ναυατιανοὶ μεγάλως ἐπὶ τῆς [1.161] . 26. [ed. Bil- 
“Ῥώμης ἤνθησαν, ἐκκλησίας πλείστας ii. Paris. τὰ Op, ‘tom. ii, p. 758. 
ἔχοντες, καὶ λαὸν πολὺν συναθροίζοντες" ed. Benedict. ] 

GAN ὁ φθόνος καὶ τούτων ἥψατο, τῆς 





Rights respecting Election of Popes ratified by the Emperors. 


Western bishops objected levity to the Hastern, and they 
again arrogancy to the bishops of the West,” as Billus* 


observes, and upon very warrantable testimonies. 


For all 


this, the bishop of Rome continued in good obedience to the 
emperor, enduring his censures and judgments. And being 
chosen by the clergy and people of Rome, he accepted from 
the emperor the ratification of that choice ; msomuch, that 
about the year 579, when all Italy was on fire with the 


Lombards, and Pelagius the 


© [Φυσῶντες tiv ἑσπέριόν τε καὶ 
τραχὺ. 

(5. Greg. Nazianz ubi sup. 1. 1802.) 
His verbis] Occidentales acerbita- 
tis et insolentie [notat:] quemad- 
modum etiam Basilius [in epistola 
quadam fastus eos atque arrogantize in- 
simulat, τί δεῖ ἡμῖν τῆς δυτικῆς ὀφρυός ; | 
(Quid opus est Occidentali supercilio 1) 
[inquiens. At contra] Orientalibus levi- 
tas [fere semper ab Occidentalibus ] 
objecta est.—Billius, Scholia in vit. 
5. Greg. Nazianz. No. 153. [Op., tom. 
ii. col. 1343. ed. 1630.] 

4 Hee [autem] una fuit causa, 
quare Pelagius injussu principis [tum] 
pontifex creatus sit, cum extra ob- 
sessam ab hoste urbem mitti quis- 
piam non posset. [Nil enim tum a 
elero in eligendo pontifice actum 
erat, nisi ejus electionem imperator 
approbasset. Missus] itaque [Con- 
stantinopolim] ad placandum impe- 
ratorem Gregorius diaconus, &c. — 
Platina, in vita Pelagii 11. [ Vite 
Pontificum, p. 81. ed. Colon. 1568.] 
—Et, Onuphrius, [ Annotat.] ibidem. 
[p. 82. In eo, quod Platina scribit 
Pelagium pontificem injussu  prin- 
cipis creatum, nihilque tum a clero 
in eligendo pontifice actum esse, 
nisi ejus electionem imperator ap- 
probasset, non ita accurate rem 
hane attigisse visus est, que sic 
se habet. Gothis Italia omni per 
Narsem patricium pulsis, eaque cum 
urbe Roma orientalis imperii parte 
facta; sub Justiniano imperatore, 
ex auctoritate pape Vigilii novus 
quidam in comitiis pontificiis mos 
inolevit. Is fuit, ut mortuo papa, 
nova quidem electio more majo- 
rum statim a clero ὃ. P. Ὁ. R. fieret, 
verum electus Romanus pontifex non 
ante consecrari, atque ab episcopis 
ordinari posset, quam ejus electio ab 
imperatore Constantinopolitano con- 
firmata esset, ipseque litteris suis 
patentibus licentiam electo pontifici 


Second constraimmed through 


concederet, ut ordinari, et consecrari 
posset, atque ita jurisdictionem pon- 
tificatus tum obtineret. Pro qua 
licentia consequenda electo necesse 
erat certam pecuniz quantitatem 
imperatori transmittere. Qua venia 
obtenta, ipse postea consecrabatur, et 
Romanum administrabat pontifica- 
tum. Antea enim idem dies comitio- 
rum, et consecrationis pontificis 
renuntiati erant. Hoc autem ideo 
Justinianum imperatorem, vel ex ejus 
auctoritate Vigilium Papam instituisse 
credendum est, ut imperator certus 
esset de conditionibus novi pontificis, 
cujus tum maxima esse auctoritas 
coeperat, imperatoribus preesertim 
Italia absentibus, ne aliquo pontifice 
factioso, vel imperatoris hoste ordi- 
nato, urbs, et Italia eo auctore ab 
orientali imperio deficeret, seque 
finitimis barbaris traderet, quod 
Silverium Papam aliquando queesiisse 
sibi persuadebat. Qua ratione fiebat, 
ut in novis comitiis eum potissimum 
Romanum pontificem crearent, quem 
imperatori, a quo confirmandus erat, 
amicum esse scirent, et de quo ille 
confideret nihil in Italia contra im- 
perium moliturum, barbaris preeser- 
tim Longobardis, eam paulo post 
vexantibus. Perduravit hee con- 
suetudo usque ad Benedictum II. 
cujus sanctitate permotus Constan- 
tinus imperator Heraclii pronepos, 
edicto suo jussit, ut deinceps quem 
clerus S. P. Q. R. pontificem summum 
delegissent, is nulla amplius impera- 
toris confirmatione expectata, more 
vetustissimo, statim ab  episcopis 
ordinaretur. Rursus Hadrianus pri- 
mus hoe jus, et paulo amplius Carolo 
Magno Francorum Regi, et ejus 
successoribus regibus Francorum, 
primum, deinde imperatoribus Ro- 
manorum concessit: quod successori- 
bus ejus ab Hadriano III. ereptum 
Othoni primo Germanorum regi, et 
Romano imperatori restituit Leo VIII. 


197 


SECTION 


XXV. 


1938 


No Universal Bishop for the first six centuries. 


Conrsrence the necessity of the times, contrary to the example of his 


WITH 
FISHER. 


predecessors, to enter upon the popedom without the 
emperor’s leave,—S. Gregory, then a deacon, was shortly 
after sent on embassy to excuse it. About this time broke 
out the ambition of John,°® patriarch of Constantinople, 
affecting to be universal bishop; he was countenanced in 
this by Mauricius the emperor, but sorely opposed by 
Pelagius and 8. Gregory; insomuch that 8. Gregory says 
plainly, “that this pride of his shows that the times of anti- 
christ were near.”! So, as yet—and this was now upon 
the point of six hundred years after Christ—there was no 
universal bishop—no one monarch over the whole militant 
Church. But Mauricius being deposed and murdered by 
Phocas, Phocas conferred upon Boniface the Third ὃ [4.p. 605 | 


Id postremo Gregorius VII. Henrico 
IV. ademptum, cardinalibus et clero 
Ss. P. Q. R. primum, deinde alii 
pontifices, qui secuti sunt, cardinali- 
bus tantum, permisere, quod ad nostra 
usque secula perdurat. Ex epistola 
8.Gregorii quarta libriprimi. Anastasio 
Bibliothecano in vitis Pelagii II. 
Vitaliani, Agathonis, et Benedicti I1. 
Romanorum Pontificum; item post 
Carolum Magnum, Gregorii IV. 
Sergii II. Leonis IV. Benedicti III. 
et Nicolai. Abbate Urspergense ex 
Ademaro monacho §S. Germani in 
eorundem pontificum enarrationibus. 
Registro Gregorii Papz VII. Sige- 
berto in Chronico. Guillelmo Tyrio 
libro i. cap. 13. de Bello Sacro. 
jratiano in Decretis, distinctione 
Ixiii. Concilii Lateranensis, sub 
AlexandroIlI. Papa celebrati, Actis, 
et aliis vetustis 8. R. E. monumentis. } 

© Onuphrius, [ Annotat.|in Platin. in 
vit. Boniface. III. [p. 87. Caeterum ali- 
quo tempore post sub Pelagio II. Jo- 
annes, et qui ei successit Cyriacus, 
patriarche Constantinopolitani, longe 
majora moliti, et adversus ipsam sane- 
tam sedem apostolicam insurgere ausi. 
Universalis sibi Episcopi nomen, et 
primum in ecclesia locum, in preejudi- 
cium non solum omnium ecclesiarum, 
sed etiam Romane, assumere conati, 
Gregorium papam eorum superbie 
resistentem habuere. | 

f (Triste tamen valde est, ut patienter 
feratur, quatenus despectis omnibus, 
preedictus frater et coepiscopus meus 
solus conetur appellari Episcopus, 
Sed] in hae ejus superbia quid aliud 


nisi propingua jam Antichristi esse 
tempora  designatur?—§. Gregor. 
(Magn. Registri] Epistol. lib. iv. Epist. 
78. [lib. v. Indict. xiii. Epist. xxi. 
(al. xxxiy.) ad Constantinam Augus- 
tam, Op., tom. ii. col. 751. C.] 

* It may be they will say 8. Gregory 
did not inyeigh against the thing, but 
the person: that John of Constanti- 
nople should take that upon him which 
belonged to the pope. But it is ma- 
nifest by S. Gregory’s own text, that 
he speaks against the thing itself, that 
neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any 
other, ought to take on him that title. 
{Cunctis enim evangelium scientibus 
liquet, quod voce Dominica sancto et 
omnium Apostolorum Petro principi 
Apostolo, totius Ecclesiz cura com- 
missaest].. . cura[ei] totius Ecclesiz 
et principatus committitur, et tamen 
universalis Apostolus non yvocatur.— 
8. Greg. [Magn. Registri] pistol. 
lib. iv. Epist. 76. [lib. v. Indict. xiii. 
Epist. xx. (al. xxxii.) ad Mauricium 
Augustum, Op. tom. ii. col. 748. B, 
C.] Therefore neither is his successor 
universal bishop. Numquid ego hae 
in re, [piissime Domine,| propriam 
causam defendo? numquid specialem 
injuriam vindico? et non magis cau- 
sam omnipotentis Dei et universalis 
Ecclesize —{ibid. D. | where he plainly 
denies that he speaks in his own 
cause or in the cause of his see ; [Certe 
pro beati Petri apostolorum principis 
honore,| per venerandam Chalcedo- 
nensem synodum hoe nomen Romano 
pontifici oblatum est; sed nullus 
eorum unquam hoe singularitatis no- 


Alienation of Italy from the Empire of the East. 


that very honour, which two of his predecessors had declaimed 
against as monstrous and blasphemous, if not antichristian.” 
Where, by the way, either these’ two popes, Pelagius and 
S. Gregory, erred in this weighty business, about an 
universal bishop over the whole Church ; or, if they did not 
err, Boniface and the rest, which after him took it upon 
them, were, in their very predecessors’ judgment, anti- 
christian. But to proceed. “ As yet, the right of election 
or ratification of the pope continued in the emperor.”! But 
then the Lombards grew so great in Italy, and the empire 
was so infested with Saracens, and such changes happened 
in all parts of the world, as that neither, for the present, the 
homage of the pope was useful to the emperor, nor the 
protection of the emperor available for the pope. By this 
means, the bishop of Rome was left to play his own game 
by himself; a thing which as it pleased him well enough, 
so both he and his successors made great advantage by 
it. For being grown to that eminence by the emperor, and 
the greatness of that city and place of his abode, he 
found himself the more free, the greater the tempest was 


that beat upon the other. 
to alienate the hearts of the 


mine uti consensit, ne dum privatum 
aliquid daretur uni, honore debito 
sacerdotes privarentur universi. [Quid 
est ergo quod nos hujus vocabuli glo- 
riam et oblatam non quzrimus, et 
alter sibi hance arripere et non oblatam 
preesumit?— Ibid. col. 749. A, B.] 
where he plainly says, the Roman 
bishops rejected this title. And yet 
for all this, Pope Gregory the Seventh 
delivers it as one of his dictates in a 
Council held at Rome about the year 
1076: Quod solus Romanus Pontifex 
jure dicatur universalis. — Baron. 
{Annal.] ad An. 1076. No. 31 et 32. 
[ vide infra, note‘. 

5 [Sed] absit a cordibus Christianis 
nomen istud blasphemie, [in quo 
omnium sacerdotum honor adimitur, 
dum ab uno sibi dementer arrogatur. | 
—S8. Gregor. [Magn. Registr.| Epist. 
lib. iv. Epist 76. [lib. v. Indict. xiii. 
Hpist. xx. (al. xxxii.) ad Mauricium 
Augustum, Op., tom. ii. col. 749. A.|— 
In isto [enim] scelesto vocabulo con- 
sentire, nihil est aliud quam fidem 
perdere.—S. Greg. [Magn. ut sup. ] 
lib. iv. Epist. 83. [lib. v. Indict. xiii. 


And then first, “he set himself 


Italians from the emperor.” * 


Epist. xix. (al. xxxix.) ad Sabinianum 
Diaconum, Op., tom. ii. col. 747. A.] 

i Vana tune [enim ] habebatur cleri 
ac populi electio, nisi id imperatores, 
aut eorum exarchi, confirmassent.— 
Platina, in vita Severini 1. [ut sup. 
p. 91.] 

k [Joannes Sextus, natione Greecus, 
eo tempore pontificatum iniit,] quo 
Theophylactus Exarchus Imperatoris 
Italiam petens, [primo in Siciliam 
venit. Quod ubi sensere] milites Itali, 
veriti ne quid mali ejus adventus por- 
tenderet, quod superioribus temporibus 
fere magis cum pontificibus quam 
cum imperatoribus sensissent, ingres 
surum [urbem] Romam interficere con- 
stituerant. (And the emperor’s own 
governor was fain to be defended from 
the emperor’s own soldiers by the 
pope’s power, who had gotten interest 
in them against their own master.) 
—Platina, in vita Johannis VI. [ut 
sup. p. 104.] Apsimarus, [calling him- 
self Tiberius,] was then [a.p. 701] 
emperor: [Justinian IJ., the lawful 
emperor, being exiled. | 


199 


ΒΈΟΤΙΟΝ 


ΧΧΥ. 


᾿ξ σι 
Editt. 
1673, and 
1686. ] 


200 


Increase of the Papal Power under the Carlovingian dynasty. 


Coyrrrence Next, he opposed himself against him. And about the year 


WITH 
FisueEr. 


710, Pope Constantine the First did also first of all openly 
confront Philippicus the emperor, in defence of images, as 
Onuphrius' tells us. After him, Gregory the Second, 
[A.D. 716,] and the Third™ [a.D. 731,] took up his example, 
By this time, the Lom- 
bards began to pinch very close, and to vex on all sides, not 
Italy only, but, Rome too. This drives the pope to seek a 
new patron; and very fitly he meets with Charles Martell, 
in France, that famous warrior against the Saracens: him 
he implores in defence of the Church against the Lombards." 
This address seems very advisedly taken, at least it proves 
very fortunate to them both; for “in short time, it dissolved 
the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy,’°—which had then 
stood two hundred and four years,—which was the pope’s 
security ; and it brought the crown of France into the 
house of Charles, and shortly after the Western Empire. 
And now began the pope to be great indeed; for by the 
bounty of Pipin,? son of Charles, that which was taken from 
the Lombards was given [A.D. 753] to the pope. So that now 
of a bishop, he became a temporal prince. But when Charles 
the Great had set up the Western Empire, then he resumed 
the ancient and original power of the emperor, to govern 


and did the lke by Leo Isaurus. 


1 Primus omnium Romanorum pon- 
tificum Imperatori Greeco Philippico, 
[qui Justiniano juniore orthodoxo 
principe occiso, imperium invaserat,] 
in os resistere palam ausus [fuit Con- 
stantinus papa ].—Onuph. [Annotat.] 
in Platin. in vita Constantini I. [ut 
sup. p. 107. Bardanes, under the 
assumed name of Philippicus, was an 
usurper, and favoured the Iconoclastic 
heresy, and had expelled the ortho- 
dox patriarch Cyrus. } 

m (Leo III. imperator.... edictum 
proponit, ut omnes qui sub imperio Ro- 
mano essent, sanctorum omnium, mar- 
tyrum et angelorum statuas atque 
imagines e templis abraderent, Xe. .. 
Gregorius autem tante impietati non 
modo non obtemperat, ὅσο... .]|—Pla- 
tina in vita Gregorii IL. [ut sup. p. 109.] 
—Ht, [Hie statim ubi pontificatum 
iniit, cleri Romani consensu, Leonem 
III. . . . imperio simul et communione 
fidelium privat, &e.—Id. in vit. | Gre- 
gorii IIL. [ut sup. p. 110.] 

> [Interim vero cum Luithprandus 


Longobardorum rex cupiditate impe- 
randi motus, urbem Romam obsideret 
. .. Gregorius legatos . . . ad Carolum 
Francie principem statim mittit, qui 
hominem rogarent,| ut primo quoque 
tempore laboranti Romee et Ecclesize 
auxilium ferret.— Platina, in vita Gre- 
gorii III. [ut sup. p. 110. ] 

° [Gregorius III. . . . orientalibus 
destitutus auxiliis, primus ad Franco- 
rum opes longe lateque patentes con- 
fugit, et ab ipsorum duce Carolo Mar- 
tello, Pipini postea regis patre, auxilia 
contra Longobardos Romam vexantes 
imploravit.] Quze res semel incepta 
cum Longobardici regni excidio finita 
est.—Onuph. [Annotat.] in Platin. 
in vita Constantini I. [ut sup. p. 107.] 

P Redditus itaque Romanis exarcha- 
tus est: quicquid Padum et Apenni- 
num interjacet, [a Placentinis usque 
ad stagna Venetorum; et quicquid 
intra Isaurum flumen, Apenninum 
et Hadriaticum continetur.] — Pla- 
tina, in vita Stephani II. [al. II]. ut 
sup. p. 115.) 


Finally settled as supreme under Gregory the Seventh. 


the Church, to call councils, to order papal elections. And 
this power continued in his posterity ; for this right of the 
emperor was in force and use in Gregory the Seventh’s 
time, “who was confirmed in the popedom by Henry the 
Fourth, whom he afterward deposed.”4 And it might have 
continued longer, if the succeeding emperors had had 
abilities enough to secure or vindicate their own right. 
But the pope, keepimg a strong council about him, and 
meeting with some weak princes, and they ofttimes dis- 
tracted with great and dangerous wars, grew stronger, till 
he got the better. So this is enough to show how the popes 
climbed up by the emperors till they overtopped them ; 
which is all I said before, and have now proved. And this 
was about the year 1073 ; for the whole popedom of Gregory 
the Seventh was begun and ended within the reign of 
William the Conqueror. Yet was it carried in succeeding 
times, with great changes of fortune and different success : 
the emperor sometimes plucking from the pope, and the 
pope from the emperor; winning and losing ground, as 
their spirits, abilities, aids, and opportunities were, till at the 
last the pope settled himself upon the grounds laid by 
Gregory the Seventh, in the great power which he now 


uses, in and over these parts of the Christian world. 


4 Imperator in gratiam cum Gre- 
gorio rediit, eundemque in pontifi- 
catu confirmavit, ut tum imperatorum 
mos erat.— Platina, in vita Gregor. VII. 
[ut sup. p. 171.] 

τ Multi deinde fuerunt imperato- 
res Henrico similiores, quam Julio 
Ceesari; quos subigere non fuit diffi- 
cile, cum domi rerum omnium securi 
[desiderent, ubi maxime opus erat 
pontificum cupiditatem virtute et 
legitimis modis reprimere. |—Calvin. 
Instit. lib. iv. cap. ii. § 138. [Op., 
tom. vili. pp. 327, 328. | 

s For in a synod at Rome, about the 
year 1076, Pope Gregory the Seventh 
established certain brief conclusions, 
twenty-seven in number, upon which 
stands almost all the greatness of the 
papacy. These conclusions are called 
Dictatus Pape; and they are reckoned 
up by Baronius, in the year 1076, 
No. 31, 32, &c. But whether this 
dictatorship did now first invade the 
Church, I cannot certainly say. The 


chief of these propositions follow 

here :— 

Quod solus Rom. pontifex jure dicatur 
Universalis. 

Quod solius papze pedes omnes prin- 
cipes deosculentur. 

Quod illi liceat imperatores deponere. 

Quod nulla synodus absque przecepto 
ejus debet Generalis vocari. 

Quod nullum capitulum, nullusque 
liber canonicus habeatur absque 
illius auctoritate. 

Quod sententia illius a nullo debeat 
retractari; et ipse omnium solus 
retractare potest. 

Quod Rom. Ecclesia nunquam erravit, 
nec in perpetuum, Scriptura tes- 
tante, errabit. 

Quod Rom. pontifex, si canonice fuerit 
ordinatus, meritis B. Petri indubit- 
anter efficitur sanctus, [testante S. 
Ennodio, &c.] 

Quod a fidelitate iniquorum subjectos 
potest absolvere. 


201 


SECTION 


XXV. 


202 


ConrERENCH 
WITH 
FIsHer. 


A.C. p. 58. 


An alleged Testimony of Ireneus to R. Supremacy examined. 


XIII.—Thirdly, A. C. knowing it is not enough to say 
this, “That the pope is pastor of the whole Church,” labours 
to prove it. And first, he tells us, “that Irenzeus intimates 
so much ;”? but he doth not tell us where. And he is much 
scanted of ancient proof, if Irenzeus stand alone. Besides, 
Irenzus was a bishop of the Gallican Church, and a very 
unlikely man to captivate the liberty of that Church under 
“the more powerful principality” of Rome. And how can we 
have better evidence of his judgment touching that princi- 
pality, than the actions of his life? When Pope Victor 
excommunicated the Asian Churches, ἀθρόως, “all at a 
blow,”* was not Irenzus the chief man that reprehended 
him for it? A very unmeet and undutiful thing, sure, it had 
been in Irenzeus, in deeds to tax him of rashness and jn- 
considerateness, whom in words A. C. would have to be 
acknowledged by him “the supreme and infallible pastor 
of the universal Church.” But the place of Irenzus which 
A. C. means, I think, is this, where he uses these words 
indeed, but short of A. C.’s sense of it: “To this Church,” 
(he speaks of Rome,) “ propter potentiorem principalitatem, 
‘for the more powerful principality of it, it is necessary that 
every Church, that is, the faithful, wrdigue, ‘round about,’ 
should have recourse.”" ‘Should have recourse,” so A. Ὁ. 
translates it. And what doth this avail him? Very great 
reason was there in Irenzus’s time, that upon any dif- 
ference arising in the faith, omnes undique fideles, “ all the 
faithful,” or, if you will, all the Churches, “round about,” 
should have recourse—that is, resort—to Rome, being the 
imperial city, and so a Church of “more powerful princi- 
pality ”’ than any other at that time in those parts of the 


t Euseb. [ Eccl. Hist. ] lib. v. cap. 24. 
[apud Keel. Hist. Script. tom. i. p. 245. 
ed. Reading ; ubi sup. p.155. note ™.] 

ἃ (Sed quoniam valde longum est, in 
hoe tali volumine omnium ecclesia- 
rum enumerare successiones, maximee, 
et antiquissimee et omnibus cognite 
a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro 
et Paulo Romee fundatee et constitutee 
ecclesiz, eam quam habet ab apostolis 
traditionem, et annunciatam homini- 
bus fidem, per successiones episcopo- 
rum pervenientem usque ad nos indi- 
cantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui 


quoquo modo, vel per sui placentiam 
malam, (al. sibi placentiam,) vel 
vanam gloriam, vel per cecitatem 
et malam sententiam, preeterquam 
oportet colligunt.] Ad hane [enim] 
Eeclesiam, propter potentiorem [al. 
potiorem] principalitatem, necesse 
est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoe 
est, eos quisunt undique fideles; in qua 
semper ab his, qui sunt undique, 


_conservata est ea quee est ab apostolis 


traditio.—S. Irenzeus adv. Heereses, 
lib. ili. .cap. 3. [Op., p. 201. ed 
Grabe. ] 


Extent of the Roman Jurisdiction in ancient times. 


9 


~ 


03 


world. Well, will this exalt Rome to be the head of the Church  Szcrton 


universal ? 
much changed since, and this conveniency of resorting to 
Rome be quite ceased? then is not Rome divested of her 
“more powerful principality ?” But the meaning of A. C. 
is, We must so have recourse to Rome, as to submit our 
faith to hers; and then, not only in Irenzus’s time, but 
through all times, reform ourselves by her rule ;—that is, all 
the faithful, not undique, “round about,” but ubigue, “ every- 
where,” must agree with Rome in point of faith. This he 
means, and Rome may thank him for it. But this Irenzeus 
saith not, nor will his words bear it; nor durst A. C. there- 
fore construe him so, but was content to smooth it over with 
this ambiguous phrase of “having recourse to Rome.” Yet 
this is a place as much stood upon by them, as any other in 
all antiquity. And should I grant them their own sense, 
“ That all the faithful everywhere must agree with Rome,”— 
which I may give, but can never grant,—yet were not this 
saying any whit prejudicial to us now. For, first, here is a 
“powerful principality” ascribed to the Church of Rome. And 
that, no man of learning doubts but the Church of Rome had 
within its own patriarchate and jurisdiction ; and that “ was 
very large,” containing all the provinces in the diocese of 
Italy,* in the old sense of the word diocese, which provinces 
the lawyers and others term suburbicarias. There were ten 
of them: The three islands, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia ; 
and the other seven upon the firm land of Italy. And this, 
I take it, is plain in Ruffinus. For he living shortly after 
the Nicene council, as he did, and being of Italy, as he was, 
he might very well know the bounds of that patriarch’s 
jurisdiction, as it was then practised. And he says ex- 
pressly, “that according to the old custom, the Roman 
patriarch’s charge was confined within the limits of the 


* Ed. Brierwood, of the Jurisdiction in 1613; this tract was printed at 


and Limits of the Patriarchs, in the 
time of the Nicene Council.—Ad. 
Qu.i. MS. [The Patriarchal Govern- 
ment of the Ancient Church, declared 
by way of answere unto four questions 
proposed unto Edward Brerewood.” 
The author, the first Professor of 
Mathematics at Gresham College, died 


Oxford, in 1641, at p. 96, of “ Certain 
Briefe Treatises written by divers 
learned men concerning the ancient 
and moderne Government of the 
Church.” The passage of which Laud 
gives the substance is at p. 99, taken, 
as it would seem, from the then un- 
published MS. | 


AL 


What if the states and policies of the world be _ τς 


204 


Conrerence Suburbicarian Churches.’ 





WITH 
FIsHEr. 





Rome was then powerful from preserving the Purity of the Faith. 


To avoid the force ‘of this 
testimony, Cardinal Perron’? lays load upon Ruffinus ; for 
he charges him with passion, ignorance, and rashness. And 
one piece of his ignorance is, that he hath ill translated 
the canon of the Council of Nice. Now, be that as it may, 
I neither do nor can approve his translation of that canon; 
nor can it be easily proved, that he purposely intended a 
translation. All that I urge is, that Ruffinus, living in that 
time and place, was very like well to know and understand 
the limits and bounds of that patriarchate of Rome in which 
he lived. Secondly, here is, that it had potentiorem, “a 
more powerful” principality than other Churches had. And 
that the Protestants grant too; and that, not only because 
the Roman prelate was ordine primus, “first in order and 
degree,’—which some one must be, to avoid confusion— 
“but also, because the Roman see had won a great deal of 
credit, and gained a great deal of power to itself in Church 
affairs: because, while the Greek, yea, and the African 
Churches too, were turbulent, and distracted with many and 
dangerous opinions, the Church of Rome all that while, and 
a good while after Irenzeus too, was more calm and constant 
to the truth.”’* Thirdly, here is a necessity, say they, 
required, “That every Church—that is, the faithful, which 
are everywhere — agree with that Church.’ But what? 
simply with that Church, whatever it do or believe? No, 
nothing less. For Irenzus adds, “ With that Church, in 
gua, 11 which, is conserved that tradition which was delivered 
by the apostles.” And God forbid but it should be ne- 


cessary for all Churches, and 


y [Et ut] apud Alexandriam, et in 
urbe Roma, vetusta consuetudo ser- 
yetur, ut [vel] ille Mgypti, [vel] hic 
suburbicariarum ecclesiarum  solici- 
tudinem gerat.—Ruffin. Eccl. Hist. 
lib. i. cap. 6. [or, the continuation of 
Eusebius, lib. x. cap. 6. apud Hist. 
Keel. Auctores, p. 221. ed. Basil. 1539. 
—The Nicene canon is the sixth: 
Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω" τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ 
καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλι, ὥστε τὸν 
᾿Αλεξανδρείας ἐπισκόπον πάντων τούτων 
ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ὅπερ καὶ τῷ ἐν τῇ 
Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τούτο σύνηθες ἐστιν᾽--- 
Cone. ed. Labbe, tom. ii. col. 32.] 

Ὁ Perron. lib. ii. of his Reply, cap. 6. 


all the faithful, to agree with 


[It is the 33d chapter of Cardinal 
Perron’s first book of the Réplique ἃ 
la Réponse du Roy de la Grande Bre- 
tagne, which discusses l'addition du 
mot, Eglises suburbicaires, faitte par 
Ruffin a la version Latine des Canons 
du Concile de Nicée.—P. 215, &e. 
ed. Paris, 1620. ] 

ἃ [Accessit ad heee et tertium, quod] 
cum Orientales et Greece ecclesiz, 
Africanee etiam, multis opinionum 
dissensionibus inter se tumultuaren- 
tur, heee sedatior aliis, et minus 
turbulenta fuerit. — Calvin. Instit. 
lib. iv. cap. 6. §. 16. [Op., tom. viii. 
p. 298.] 


In what the Prerogatives of S. Peter consisted. 


205 


that ancient apostolic Church in all those things in which it ϑποττον 


keeps to the doctrine and discipline delivered by the apostles. _ 


In Ivenzeus’s time, it kept these better than any other 
Church ; and by this, in part, obtained potentiorem principali- 
tatem, “a greater power” than other Churches, but not over 
all other Churches. And, as they understand Ireneus, a 
necessity lay upon all other Churches to agree with this ; 
but this necessity was laid upon them by the “then in- 
tegrity of the Christian faith there professed, not by the 
universality of the Roman jurisdiction now challenged.” 
And let Rome reduce itself to the observation of tradition 
apostolic, to which it then held; and I will say, as Irenzus 
did, “that it will be then necessary for every Church, and 
for the faithful everywhere, to agree with it.” Lastly, let 
me observe too, that Irenzus made no doubt but that 
Rome might fall away from apostolical tradition, as well as 
other particular Churches of great name have done. For he 
does not say, in qua servanda semper erit, sed in qua servata 
est: not, “in which Church the doctrine delivered from the 
apostles shall ever be entirely kept,’—that had been home 
indeed—but “in which,” by God’s grace and mercy, “zt was” 
to that time of Irenzeus so “kept and preserved.” So we 
have here, in Jrenzus’s judgment, the Church of Rome 
then entire, but not infallible ; and endowed with “a more 
powerful principality ” than other Churches, but not with an 
universal dominion over all other Churches ;—which is the 
thing in question. 


KY. 


XIV.—But to this place of Irenzeus, A.C. jois a reason A.C. p. 58. 


of his own. For he tells us, “the bishop of Rome is 8. Peter’s 
successor,” and therefore to him we must have recourse. 
The fathers, I deny not, ascribe very much to 8. Peter; but 
it is to S. Peter im his own person. And among them, 
Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling 5. Peter 
as any of them, and yet did he never intend to give an 
absolute principality to Rome in S. Peter’s right. There 
is a noted place in that father, where his words are these: 
“For the Lord Himself made 5. Peter the first of the 
apostles, a firm rock, wpon which the Church of God is built, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, ἕο. For im 
him the faith is made firm every way, who received the key 


206 


Coyrrrence Of heaven, &c. 


WITH 
FISHER. 


Matt. xvi. 


Τὴ. 


Epiphanius, as alleged, speaks of the Faith of S. Peter personally, 


For in him all the questions and subtleties 
of the faith are found.” This is a great place at first sight 
too, and deserves a marginal note, to call young readers’ eyes 
to view it. And it hath this note in the old Latin edition, 
at Paris, 1564: “ Petri principatus et prestantia,’ “ Peter’s 
principality and excellency.” This place, as much show as 
it makes for the Roman principality, I shall easily clear, and 
yet do no wrong either to S. Peter or the Roman Church. 
For most manifest it is, that the authority of S. Peter is 
urged here to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. And 
then follow the eulogies given to 8. Peter, the better to set 
off and make good that authority: as that he was “ princeps 
apostolorum,' ‘the prince of the apostles, and pronounced 
blessed by Christ ; because as God the Father revealed to 
him the Godhead of the Son, so did the Son the Godhead 
of the Holy Ghost.” After this, Epiphanius calls him 
“ solidam petram,® ‘a solid rock,’ upon which the Church of 
God was founded, and against which the gates of hell should 
not prevail.” And adds, “that the faith was rooted and 
made firm in him‘ every way, in him who received the key of 
heaven.” And after this, he gives the reason of all: “ Because 
in him,”—mark, I pray, it is still “in him,” as he was blessed 
by that revelation from God the Father, 8S. Matt. xvi.— 
“were found all the λεπτολογήματα, ‘the very niceties’ and 
exactness of the Christian faith.” For he professed the 
Godhead of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and so, omni 


> Tpse autem Dominus constituit 
eum primum apostolorum, petram 
firmam super quam Ecclesia Dei 
eedificata est, et porte: inferorum non 
valebunt adversus illam, &c. Juxta 
omnem enim modum in ipso firmata 
est fides, qui accepit clavem ccelorum, 
Χο. In hoe enim omnes questiones 
ac subtilitates fidei inveniuntur.— 
Epiphan. in Ancorato. (cap. ix.] ed. 
Paris. Lat. 1564. fol. 497. A. ed. 
vero Graeco-Latin. tom. ii. p. 14. 
[Β. ed. Petav. Paris. 1622. Ἔδει τὸν 
πρῶτον τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων τὴν πέτραν τὴν 
στερεὰν, ἐφ᾽ ἣν ἣ ᾿Εκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ 
φκοδόμηται, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύ- 
TU auras” πύλαι μὲν ἅδου αἱ αἱρέσεις 
καὶ οἱ αἱρεσιάρχαι' κατὰ πάντα γὰρ 
τρόπον ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστερεώθη ἡ πίστις, ἐν 
τῷ “λαβόντι τὴν κλεῖν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἐν 


τῷ λύοντι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ δεόντι ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ" ἐν τούτῳ γάρ ἐστι πάντα τὰ 
ζητούμενα λεπτολογήματα τῆς πίστεως 
εὑρισκόμενα. ] 

© [Φησὶ οὖν ὁ μακάριος “Πέτρος τοῖς 
περὶ ᾿Ανανίαν"] τὶ ὅτι ἐπείρασεν [ὑμᾶς 
ὁ Σατανᾶς ψεύσασθαι τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ 
ἁγίῳ; καὶ φησὶ, Οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποι- 
ἀλλὰ Θεῷ᾽ ἄρα Θεὸς ἐκ Πατρὸς, καὶ Ὑἱοῦ 
τὸ “Πνεῦμᾳ, ᾧ ἐψεύσαντο οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
τιμήματος νοσφισάμενοι.] (For there 
begins the argument of Epiphanius.) 

—[ibid. p. 14. “A.J 

[καθὼς μάρτυρει]) ὁ κορυφαιότατος 

[τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων, 0 Karatiabels μακα- 
ρισθῆναι ὑπὸ Κυρίου, ὅτι 6 Πατὴρ αὐτῷ 
ἀπεκάλυψε' —ibid.] 

© τὴν στερεὰν meTpav.—| ibid. ] 

f καὶ πάντα γὰρ, kK. τ. A.—[ibid. ] 

& ἐν τούτῳ yap, κ. τ. A.—[ibid. ] 


and did not hold him, still less his Successors, to be chief in theChurch, 207 


modo, every point of faith was rooted in him. And this  Sscriox 
is the full meaning of that learned father, in this passage. πρῶ ἢ 
Now, therefore, “ building the Church upon 5. Peter,’ in 
Epiphanius’s sense, is not as if he and his successors were 
to be monarchs over it for ever; but it is the edifying and 
establishing the Church in the true faith of Christ, by the 
confession which 5. Peter made. And so he expresses 
himself elsewhere most plainly: “8S. Peter,” saith he, “who 
was made to us indeed a solid rock, firming the faith of our 
Lord; on which rock the Church is built yuata omnem modum, 
‘every way." First, that he confessed Christ to be the Son 
of the living God; and by and by he heard, ‘ Upon this rock 
of solid faith I will build My Church.” And the same con- 
fession he made of the Holy Ghost.” Thus was 5. Peter a 
solid rock, upon which the Church was founded omnt modo, 
“every way ;” that is, the faith of the Church was con- 
firmed by him in every point.) But that S. Peter was any 
rock or foundation of the Church, so as that he and his 
successors must be relied on in all matters of faith, and 
govern the Church like princes or monarchs, that Epiphanius 
never thought of. And that he did never think so, I prove 
it thus. For beside this apparent meaning of his context, 
as is here expressed, how could he possibly think of a 
supremacy due to S. Peter’s successor, that in most express 
terms, and that twice repeated,‘ makes S. James, the brother 


h ὃς γέγονεν [ἡμῖν ἀληθώς στερεὰ 
Πέτρα θεμελιοῦσα τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Κυρίου, 
ἐφ᾽ ἣ φκοδόμητο ἡ ἐκκλησία κατὰ πάντα 
τρόπον᾽ πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι ᾧμολόγησε 
Χριστὸν τὸν viov τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζώντος, 
καὶ ἤκουσεν, ὅτι ἐπὶ τῇ πέτρᾳ ταύτῃ 
τῆς ἀσφαλῆς πίστεως οἰκοδομήσω μοῦ 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐπειδὴ σαφῶς αὐτὸν 
ὡμολόγησεν Yiov ἀληθινὸν .... ᾿Αλλὰ 
καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὁ αὐτὸς 
ἀσφαλίζεται ἡμᾶς, λέγων τοῖς περὶ 
᾿Ανανίαν, x. τ. λ.1 Qui factus est nobis 
revera solida petra firmans fidem 
Domini. In qua (petra) edificata 
est ecclesia juxta omnem modum. 
Primo, quod confessus est Christum 
esse Filium Dei vivi, et statim audivit, 
Super hane petram solide fidei eedi- 
ficabo Ecclesiam meam... Etiam de 
Sp. Sancto idem, &c. — Epiphan. 
[adversus Heeres. | lib. ii. tom i. [cap. 
7, 8.1 Heres. lix. contra Catharos, 


[Op.,] tom. i, p. 500: [B, C.] ed. 
Greeco-Latin. [Petav. Paris. 1622. ] 

i περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὁ αὐτὸς 
ἀσφαλίζεται ἡμᾶς.---ἸὈ 4. [cap. 8.] 

k ΠῚ6 primus, (speaking of S. James, 
the Lord’s brother), episcopalem 
cathedram cepit, quum ei ante cete- 
ros omnes suum in terris thronum 
Dominus tradidisset. [Καὶ πρῶτος 
οὗτος εἴληφε τὴν καθέδραν τῆς ἐπισκο- 
πῆς, ᾧ πεπίστευκε Κύριος τὸν θρόνον 
αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πρώτῳ" |—Epiphan. 
[adversus Heeres.] lib. iii, tom. ii. 
[cap. 7.] Heeres. Ixxviii. [contra 
Antidicomarianitas, Op., tom. i] 
Ρ. 1039. [B. ed. Petav. Paris. 1622.] 
—Et fere similiter, [Κατασταθέντος 
εὐθὺς Ιακὼβ Tod ἀδελφοῦ Κυρίου καλου- 
μένου καὶ ἀποστόλου, ἐπισκόπου πρώτου 
υἵου τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ φύσει ὄντος, κ. τ. A. 
—Epiphan. [adversus Heeres.] lib. i. 
tom. ii. [cap. 8. in fin.] Heres. xxix. 


208 


What S. Peter received was in common with all the Apostles. 


Conrerence Of our Lord, and not S. Peter, “succeed our Lord in the 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


A.C. p. 58. 


Matt. xvi. 
[19.] 

Matt. xviii. 
[18]. 

John xx. 
[23.] 


principality of the Church ?” And Epiphanius was too full 
both of learning and industry, to speak contrary to himself 
in a point of this moment. 

XV.—Next, since A. C. speeds no better with Irenzus, 
he will have it out of Scripture. And he still tells us, “the 
bishop of Rome is S. Peter’s successor.” Well, suppose 
that. What then? What? Why then he succeeded in all 
S. Peter’s prerogatives! which are ordinary, and belonged to 
him as a bishop,—though not in the extraordinary, which 
belonged to him as an apostle. For that is it which you ail 
say, but no man proves." If this be so, yet then I must tell 
A. C., 5. Peter in his ordimary power was never made 
“pastor of the whole Church ;” nay, in his extraordinary, 
he had no “ more powerful principality” " than the other 
apostles had. A “ primacy of order’? ° was never denied him 
by the Protestants ; and an “universal supremacy of power” 
was never granted him by the primitive Christians. Yea, 
but “Christ promised the keys to S. Peter.” True, but so 
did He to all the rest of the apostles ; and to their successors 


as much as to his. 


So it is ἐλόὲ et illis, not tibi non illis, 


“1 give the keys to thee and them,” not “to thee to exclude 


them ;” 


unless any man will think heaven-gates so easy, 


that they might open and shut them without the keys. 


And §. Augustine is plain: 


“Tf this were said only to 


S. Peter, then the Church hath no power to do it ;” ? which, 


[contra Nazarzos, 
ΠΌΑ 

1 Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. 
cap. 9. ὃ 45. [ubi sup. p. 186. note *.] 

m Sect. xxv. No. 10. [ubisup. p. 185.] 

π᾿ Bellarmin. ibid. [ubi sup. p. 186. 
note °. 

o «The fathers gave three preroga- 
tives to 8. Peter: of Authority, of 
Primacy, and of Principality ; but not 
of supremacy of power.’—Rainoldes 
against Hart, chap. v. Divis. iii. And 
he proves it at large. [His words are: 
“These sayings, and the like, which 
are alleged out of the fathers, do 
touch three prerogatives which they 
give to Peter: the first, of Authority ; 
the second, of Primacy ; the third, of 
Principality. But none of them all 
doth prove the supremacy which you 
pretend to Peter, and mean to the 


Op., tom. i. p. 


pope. For by that supremacy is 
signified the fulness of ecclesiastical, 
or rather papal, power, even a power 
sovereign of governing the Church 
throughout the whole world, in all 
points and matters of doctrine and 
discipline.,-—The Sum of the Con- 
ference between John Rainoldes and 
John Hart, ὅσο. p. 172. ed. London, 
1609.] 

pP [Unus malus corpus malorum 
significat: quomodo Petrus corpus 
bonorum, immo corpus ecclesie, sed 
in bonis. Nam si in Petro non esset 
Ecclesiz sacramentum, non ei diceret 
Dominus, Tibi dabo claves, &c.] Si 
hoe Petro tantum dictum est, non 
facit hoe Ecclesia. [Si autem et in 
Ecclesia fit, ut quee in terra ligantur, 
in ccelo ligentur, et que solvuntur in 
terra, solvantur in ccelo, &c. Si hoe 


Our Lord’s Prayer for S. Peter’s Perseverance alleged. 


God forbid ! 
the rest, in a figure of the Church, to whose power aud for 
whose use they were given. But there is not one key in all 
that bunch, that can let in 8. Peter’s successor to a “ more 
powerful principality universal” than the successors of the 


other apostles had. 


209 


The keys therefore were given to S. Peter and  Srorton 


XXV. 


XVI.—Yea, but Christ prayed “that S. Peter’s faith A.C. p. 58. 


might not fail.” 


prayed, S. Peter’s faith failed not ; that is, in application to Ξ 


his person, “ for his perseverance in the faith,” as S. Prosper4 
applies it. ‘“ Which perseverance yet he must owe and 
acknowledge to the grace of Christ’s prayer for him, not to 
the power and ability of his own free will,” as ὅδ. Jerome™ 
tells us. Bellarmine® likes not this, “because,” saith he, 
“Christ here obtained some special privilege for 8. Peter, 
whereas perseverance in grace is a gift common to all the 
elect.” And he is so far right. And the special grace 
which this prayer of Christ obtained for S. Peter was, that 
he should not fall into a final apostasy; no, not when Satan 
had sifted him to the bran, that he fell most horribly even 
into a threefold denial of his Master, and that with a curse. 
And to recover this, and persevere, was aliquid speciale, 1 
trow, if any thing ever were. But this will not down with 
Bellarmine. No; “The aliquid speciale,‘ ‘the special thing’ 


docent, Dominum orasse hoe loco pro 
perseverantia solius Petri in gratia 
Dei usque ad finem. At contra: primo, 
quia oravit Dominus paulo post pro 


ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus, quando 
claves accepit, ecclesiam sanctam 
significavit. Si in Petri persona 
significati sunt in Ecclesia boni, &c.] 


—S. Augustin. in Johann. Evang. 
[cap. xii.] Tractat. 1. [12. Op., tom. iii. 
par. 2. col. 633. D, E.] 

a [In evangelio autem secundum 
Lucam,] Deum dare, ut in fide per- 
severetur, [ita promitur : Dixit autem 
Jesus Petro, Simon, Simon, &c.|—S. 
Prosper. [seu potius ignot. auctor. ] 
de Vocat. Gent. lib. i. cap. 24. [apud 
Op., S. Prosper. col. 885. A.] 

[Ego autem] rogavi [pro te] ut non 
deficeret, &c. Et certe juxta vos in 
apostoli erat positum potestate, si 
voluisset, ut non deficeret fides ejus, 
[qua utique deficiente, peccatum 
subingreditur.] — 8. Hieron. [Dia- 
log.] adversus Pelagianos, lib. ii. [Op., 
tom. iv. par. 2. col. 521. ] 

s [Altera expositio est quorum- 
dam, qui hoe tempore vivunt, qui 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


perseverantia omnium apostolorum, 
immo etiam omnium electorum, 
(Joan. xvii. 11.) Pater Sancte, serva 
eos, &c.; non erat igitur ratio cur 
bis pro perseverantia Petri oraret. 
Secundo, quia sine dubio hie Domi- 
nus] aliquid speciale { Petro impetra- 
vit, ut patet ex designatione certee 
persone: perseverantia autem in 
gratia est donum commune omnium 
electorum.] — Bellarmin. de Rom. 
Pont. lib. iv. cap. 8. [ὃ 3. Op., tom. i. 
col. 806. A.] 

t (Est igitur tertia expositio vera, 
quod Dominus duo privilegia Petro 
impetraverit. Unum, ut ipse non 
posset unquam veram fidem amittere 
Soues Alterum privilegium est,] ut 
ipse tanquam pontifex non posset 
unquam docere aliquid contra fidem, 


P 


That is true; and in that sense that Christ Luke xxii. 
2. 


210 


The application of it to his Successors unauthorized by antiquity, 


Conrsrence here obtained was,” saith he, “that neither S. Peter himself, 


WITH 


FIsuer. 


1 fubi sup. 
10. 
note P.] 


nor any other that should sit in his seat, should ever teach 
any thing contrary to the true faith.” That 8S. Peter, after 
his recovery, should preach nothing, either as apostle or 
bishop, contrary to the faith, will easily be granted him; 
but that none of his successors should do it, but be all 
infallible, that certainly never came within the compass of 
Rogavi pro te, Petre, “1 have prayed for thee, Peter.” And 
Bellarmine’s proof of this is his just confutation. For he 
proves this exposition of that text only by the testimony of 
seven! popes in their own cause; and then takes a leap to 
Theophylact, who says nothing to the purpose. So that, 
upon the matter, Bellarmine confesses there is not one 
father of the Church, disinterested in the cause, that under- 
stands this text as Bellarmine doth, till you come down to 
Theophylact. So the pope’s infallibility appeared to nobody 
but the popes themselves, for above a thousand years after 
Christ—for so long it was before Theophylact" lived. And 
the spite of it is, Theophylact could not see it neither. For 
the most that Bellarmine makes him say, is but this: “ Be- 
cause I account thee as chief of My disciples, confirm the 
rest; for this becomes thee, which art to be a rock and 
foundation of the Church after Me.’* For this is personal 
too, and of 8. Peter, and that as he was an apostle; for 
otherwise than as an apostle, he was not a rock or founda- 
tion of the Church, no, not in a secondary sense. The 
special privilege therefore which Christ prayed for, was 
personal to 8. Peter, and is that which before I mentioned. 


sive, ut in sede ejus nunquam inveni- 
retur, qui doceret [contra veram fidem. 
Ex quibus privilegiis, primum fortasse 
non manavit ad posteros: at secun- 
dum sine dubio manayit ad posteros, 
sive successores.] — Bellarmin. de 
Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. [§ 5, 6. 
Op., tom. i. col. 806. C.] 

« Theophylactus, [patria Constan- 
tinopolitanus, Achridiz primariz 
Bulgarorum ecclesiz archiepiscopus 
(Cave, sub voc.),] floruit circa An. 
Dom. 1072. 

x Preeter hos [pontifices, non desunt 
etiam alii auctores, qui eodem modo 
exponunt. Theophylactus in cap. xxii. 
Luce aperte docet, dari Petro hoc 


privilegium, quia ipse futurus erat 
princeps, et caput aliorum, ac proinde 
dari omnibus aliis, qui illi in princi- 
patu succederent:] Quia te habeo, 
inquit, principem discipulorum, con- 
firma ceteros. Hoe enim decet te, 
qui post me ecclesiz petra es et funda- 
mentum.—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. 
lib. iv. cap. 3. [§ 13. Op., tom. i. col. 
807. D. The original words are: 
“Ort ἐπειδή σε τῶν μαθητῶν ἔξαρχον 
ἔχω... στήριξον τοὺς λοιπούς. τοῦτο 
γὰρ προσήκει σοι, ὡς μετ᾽ ἐμὲ ὄντι τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας πέτρᾳ καὶ στηρίγματι.--- 
Theophylact. in Luc. xxii. [p. 517. B. 
ed. Paris. 1635. ] 


and inconsistent in itself—S, Peter’s a personal privilege only. 


211 


And Bellarmine himself says, that “ Christ obtained by this — Sxcrrox 


prayer two privileges, especial ones, for S. Peter:”Y the one, 
“that he should never quite fall from the true faith, how 
strongly soever he were tempted ;” the other, “that there 
should never be found any sitting in his seat, that should 
teach against it.” Now for the first of these, Bellarmine ’” 
“doubts it did not flow over to his successors.” Why, then, 
it is true which 1 here say, that this was personal to S. Peter. 
“ But the second,” he says, “out of all doubt passed over to 
his successors.”” Nay, that is not out of all doubt neither: 
First, because many learned men have challenged many 
popes for teaching heresy; and that is against the true faith. 
And that which so many learned men have affirmed, is not 
out of all doubt; or if it be, why does Bellarmine take so 
much pains to confute and disprove them as he doth?? 
Secondly, because Christ obtained of His Father every thing 
that He prayed for, if He prayed for it absolutely, and not 
under a condition : 
always.” Now, Christ here prayed absolutely for S. Peter ; 
therefore, whatsoever He asked for him was granted. There- 
fore, if Christ intended his successors as well as himself, His 
prayer was granted for his successors as well as for himself. 
But then, if Bellarmine will tell us absolutely, as he doth, 
“that the whole gift obtaimed by this prayer for S. Peter 
did belong to his successors ;”” and then by and by after, 
break this gift ito two parts, and call the first part into 
doubt, whether it belongs to his successors or no, he cannot 
say the second part is out of all doubt. For if there be 
reason of doubting the one, there is as much reason of 
doubting the other, since they stand both on the same foot, 
the validity of Christ’s prayer for 5. Peter. 

XVII.—Yea, but “ Christ charged 8S. Peter to govern and 


y Impetraverit, &c.—ibid. § 5. [ubi 
sup. p. 209. note *.| 

z Ex quibus privilegiis primum 
fortasse non manavit ad posteros, at 
secundum sine dubio manavit ad 
posteros sive successores.—Bellarmin. 
ibid. [ubi sup. p. 209. note *.] 

® Bellarmin. [de Rom. Pont.] lib. iv. 
cap. 8. [Op., tom. i. col. 819. et seqq. 
This chapter, and those which follow it, 
are occupied by Bellarmine with re- 
futing charges which had been made, 


chiefly by the Magdeburg Centuria- 
tors, against several of the popes, forty 
in number. | 

» [Quarto,] donum hoc loco Petro 
impetratum, etiam ad successores per- 
tinet: [nam Christus oravit pro 
Petro in utilitatem ecclesize ; ecclesia 
autem semper indiget aliquo, a quo 
confirmetur, cujus fides deficere non 
possit.|—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. 
lib. iv. cap. 3. ὃ 8. [Op., tom. i. col. 
806. B.] 


Pp 2 


a 


(ΧΥ. 


“ Father, I know that thou hearest Me John xi. 


212 Charge to S. Peter, in common with the other Apostles, to feed the Flock. 


Coxrrrence feed His whole flock.” Nay, soft! It is but His sheep and His 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


John xxi. 
15. 
A.C. p. 58. 


AC. p. 58: 


lambs ; and that every apostle, and every apostle’s successor, 
hath charge to do.° But over the whole flock I find no one 
apostle or successor set. And it is a poor shift to say, as 
A.C. doth, “that the Bishop of Rome is set over the whole 
flock, because both over lambs and sheep ;” for in every flock, 
that is not of barren wethers, there are lambs and sheep, 
that is, weaker and stronger Christians;? not people and 
pastors, subjects and governors, as A. C. expounds it, to 
bring the necks of princes under Roman pride. And if kings 
be meant, yet then the command is, Pasce, ‘ feed” them ; but 
deponere, or occidere, to “depose,” or “kill” them, 1s not pascere 
inany sense: lanii id est, non pastoris ; “that is the butcher’s, 
not the shepherd’s, part.” If a sheep go astray never so far, 
it is not the shepherd’s part to kill him; at least if he do, 
non pascit dum occidit, “he doth not certainly feed while he 
kills.” 

XVIII.—And for the close, “That the bishop of Rome 
shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole flock im such 
sort, as that neither particular man, nor Church, shall have 
just cause, under pretence of reformation in manners or faith, 
to make a separation from the whole Church ;”—by A. C.’s 
favour, this is mere begging of the question. He says, the 
pope shall ever govern the whole Church so as that there shall 
be no just cause given of a separation. And that is the very 
thing which the Protestants charge upon him ; namely, that he 
hath governed, if not the whole, yet so much of the Church 
as he hath been able to bring under his power, so as that he 
hath given too just cause of the present continued separation. 
And as the corruptions in the doctrine of faith in the 


© Matt. xxviii. 29, [19.] and Matt. question, [Quibus ita pontifex :] 


x. 17, [7.1 the same power and charge 
is given to them all. 

4 And this seems to me to allude 
to that of 5, Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 2. 
and Heb. v. 12: “Some are fed with 
milk, and some with stronger meat.” 
The lambs with milk, and the sheep 
with stronger meat. But here A.C. 
follows Pope Hildebrand close, who in 
the case of [Henry IV.] the emperor 
then, [quum instabant ex his, qui 
aderant, nonnulli regem non ita cito 
anathematizandum esse,] asked this 


Quando, [inquit,| Christus ecclesiam 
suam Petro commisit, et dixit, Pasce 
oves meas, excepitne reges? [Nam 
cum eidem ligandi et solvyendi potesta- 
tem daret, nullum excepit, vel nemi- 
nem ejus potentiz subtraxit.]—Pla- 
tina, [ Vitee Pontific. ] in vita Greg. VII. 
[p. 173.] And certainly kings are 
not exempted from being fed by the 
Church; but from being spoiled of 
their kingdoms by any churchmen, 
that they are. 


That Bp. of Rome will never give cause for separation, an assumption. 213 


Church of Rome were the cause of the first separation, so 
are they at this present day the cause why the separation 
continues. And further, I, for my part, am clear of opinion, 
that the errors in the doctrine of faith which are charged 
upon the whole Church, at least so much of the whole as in 
these parts of Europe hath been kept under the Roman 
jurisdiction, have had their original and continuance from 
this, That so much of the universal Church (which indeed 
they account all) hath forgotten her own liberty, and sub- 
mitted to the Roman Church and bishop; and so is in a 
manner forced to embrace all the corruptions which the 
particular Church of Rome hath contracted upon itself; and 
being now not able to free herself from the Roman jurisdic- 
tion, is made to continue also in all her corruptions. And 
for the Protestants, they have made no separation from the 
general Church, properly so called (for therein A. C. said 
well, “the pope’s administration can give no cause to separate 
from that’), but their separation is only from the Church of 
Rome, and such other churches as, by adhering to her, have 
hazarded themselves, and do now miscall themselves the 
whole Catholic Church. Nay, even here the Protestants 
have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, but in her 
errors; not in the things which constitute a Church, but 
only in such abuses and corruptions as work toward the 
dissolution of a Church. 


F. I also asked, Who ought to judge in this case? The 
2%. said, A General Council.* 


* [It is true, when the question is about the general faith of the Church, the 
matter may be made most firm, if the Church in a General Council, with the 
full authority of her chief pastor, and all other pastors, whom all people must 
obey, (Rom. xv.; Heb. xiii.) decree what is to be held for divine truth, by Viswm 
est Spiritui Sancto et nobis, (Acts xy.) and by adding Anathema, to such as resist 
this truth. For if this be not firm and infallible, what can be so firm and 
well-founded in the Church, which, under pretext of seeming evident Scripture 
or demonstration, may not be shaken and called in question by an erring dis- 
puter? For if all pastors being gathered together in the name of Christ, 
praying wnanimiter for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost, making 
great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures, and other grounds 
of faith, and hearing each pastor declare what hath been the ancient tradition 
of his Church, shall, in fine, conclude and decree, in manner aforesaid, what is 
to be held for Divine truth,—if, I say, the Council in this decree may err, and 
may be controlled by every particular or any particular, unlearned or learned, 
man, or Church, pretending evident text of Scripture, or clear demonstration 
—supple, Teste et judice seipsis—what can remain firm or certain upon earth, 
which may not by a like pretence be controlled, or at least, by one or other, 
called in question? A General Council, therefore, being lawfully called, con- 


SECTION 


« 


ἊΝ (ἡ Ρ: ὅ8᾽ 


[A.C.p.59.] 


214 


General Councils—difficulty of assembling ail Bishops. 


Conrrerence tinued and confirmed, is, doubtless, a most competent judge of all controversies 


WITH 
FISHER. 


of faith. But what is to be done when a General Council cannot be called, as 
many times it cannot by reason of manifold impediments ; orif, being called, all 
will not be of one mind? as among Protestants and others, who admit no 
infallible means, will, or judge, beside “ only Scripture,” which each man will 
interpret as seemeth best to his several private judgment or spirit, it is scarce 
to be hoped that all, or the major part, will ever so agree, as to remain constant 
in one and the same mind. Hath Christ our Lord in this case provided no 
means, no rule, no judge, which may infallibly determine and end contro- 
versies, and procure unity and certainty of belief, being so necessary for the 
honour of God, and the good of His Church? Must people, for want of such 
a judge, rule, or means, continue, not only months and years, but whole 
ages, in uncertainty and disunity of faith, and in perpetual jars about even 
main matters of divine truth? There is no earthly kingdom that, in case 
matters cannot be composed by Parliament—which cannot be ealled upon all 
occasions and at all times—hath not, beside the law-books, some living magis- 
trates and judges, and, above all, one visible king, the highest magistrate and 
judge, who hath authority sufficient to end controversies, and procure peace and 
unity, and certainty of judgments, about all temporal affairs; and shall we 
think that Christ, the wisest King, hath provided in His kingdom, which is the 
Church, only the law-books of Holy Scriptures, and no living visible magistrates 
and judges; and, above all, one chief magistrate and judge, so assisted with 
His Spirit and Providence, as may suffice to end controversies, and breed unity 
and certainty of faith? which never can be while every man may interpret Holy 
Scripture, the law-book, as he list.—A. C. marg. note to p. 59. ] 


%. I.—And surely, what greater or surer judgment you 
can have, where sense of Scripture is doubted, than a General 
Council, I do not see, nor do you doubt. And A. C. grants 
it to be “a most competent judge of all controversies of 
faith, so that all pastors be gathered together, and in the 
name of Christ, and pray unanimously for the promised 
assistance of the Holy Ghost, and make great and diligent 
search and examination of the Scriptures, and other grounds 
of faith, and then decree what is to be held for Divine truth. 
For then,” saith he, “ it is firm and infallible, or else there is 
nothing firm upon earth.” As fair as this passage seems, 
and as freely as I have granted that a General Council is 
the best judge on earth where the sense of Scripture is 
doubted, yet even in this passage there are some things 
considerable. As first, When shall the Church hope for such 
a General Council, in which “all pastors shall be gathered 
together?”’ ‘There was never any such General Council yet, 
nor do I believe such can be had; so that is supposed in 
vain: and you might have learned this of Bellarmine,° if 

© [Preeter hee argumenta hereti- hactenus concilium generale, neque 
corum, movent Catholici unum du- etiam videtur deinceps futurum; [si 
bium de his, qui interesse debent in  aliqui tantum, quinam illi sunt? Non 
concilio; nam vel ad generale con- enim videtur major ratio de uno, 
cilium faciendum requiruntur omnes quam de alio.]—Bellarmin. de Con- 


episcopi totius orbis, vel aliqui tan-  ciliis [et Ecclesia, | lib. i. cap. 17. 81. 
tum :] si omnes, nullum fuit [ergo] [Op., tom. ii. col. 34. C.] 


and of observing the conditions requisite in their proceedings. 


you will not believe me. Next, saith he, “If all these 
pastors pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the 
Holy Ghost.” Why, but if all pastors cannot meet together, 
all cannot pray together, nor all search the Scriptures 
together, nor all upon that search decree together ; so that 
is supposed in vain too. Yea, but thirdly, “ If all that meet 
do pray unanimously.” What then? “All that meet” are 
not simply all. Nor doth the Holy Ghost come and give 
His assistance upon every prayer that is made unanimously, 
though by very many prelates or other faithful people met 
together, unless all other requisites, as well as unanimity, 
to make their prayer to be heard and granted, be observed 
by them; so that an unanimous prayer is not adequately 
supposed, and therefore concludes not. But lastly, how 
far a General Council, if all A. C.’s conditions be observed, is 
“firm and infallible,” that shall be more fully discussed at 
after! In the mean time, these two words, “ firm,’ and 
“infallible,” are ill put together as synonymes. For there 
are some things most infallible im themselves, which yet 
could never get to be made firm among men: and there 
are many things made firm by law, both in churches and 
kingdoms, which yet are not infallible in themselves. So to 
draw all together: to settle controversies in the Church, 
there is a visible judge and infallible, but not living; and 
that is the Scripture? pronouncing by the Church. And 


f Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 1. fuit, (quamyvis nec modo desit,) pro 


s And this was thought a sufficient 
judge, too, when Christians were as 
humble as learned. I am sure Op- 
tatus thought so. Querendi sunt 
judices: si Christiani, de utraque 
parte dari non possunt, quia studiis 
veritas impeditur. De foris que- 
rendus est judex: si paganus, non 
potest christiana nosse secreta: si 
Judzeus, inimicus est christiani bap- 
tismatis: ergo in terris de hac re 
nullum poterit reperiri judicium; de 
coelo queerendus est judex. Sed ut 
quid pulsamus ad ccelum, cum habe- 
amus hie in evangelio testamentum ? 
Quia hoc loco recte possunt terrena 
ceelestibus comparari: tale est quod 
quivis hominum habens numerosos 
filios,/quamdiu pater preesens est, 
ipse imperat singulis; non est adhue 
necessarium testamentum: sic et 
Christus, quamdiu przesens in terris 


tempore quicquid necessarium erat, 
apostolis imperavit. Sed quomodo 
terrenus pater, dum se in confinio 
senserit mortis, timens ne post mor- 
tem suam, rupta pace, litigent fratres, 
adhibitis testibus, voluntatem suam 
de pectore morituro, transfert in ta- 
bulas diu duraturas: et si fuerit inter 
fratres nata contentio, non itur ad 
tumulum, sed queeritur testamentum ; 
et qui [in] tumulo quiescit, tacitus de 
tabulis loquitur. Vivus, cujus est 
testamentum, in coelo est: ergo volun- 
tas Hjus, velut in testamento, sic in 
Evangelio requiratur.—S. Optat. [de 
Schism. Donatist.] adv. Parmen. lib. v. 
[cap. 8. Op., p. 81. ed. Dupin. ubi sup. 
p. 79. note ‘.] This pregnant place of 
Optatus, (thatthe Scripture is the judge 
of Divine truth whenever it is ques- 
tioned,) though Balduin dare not deny, 
yet he would fain slide both by it and 


215 


Srctron 


XXXVI. 


216 


A General Council confirmed by being received. 


Coxrrrencn there is a visible and a living judge, but not mfallible ; and 
that is a General Council, lawfully called, and so proceeding. 
But I know no formal confirmation of it needful, though 
A.C. require it," but only that, after it is ended, the whole 
Church admit it, be it never so tacitly. 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


by a parallel place as fullin S. Augus- 
tine in Psalm. xxi. Enarr. 2. [30. Op., 
tom. ivy. col. 101. F. Quare litigas? 
Fratres sumus, quare litigamus? Non 
intestatus mortuus est Pater. Fecit 
testamentum, et sic mortuus est : mor- 
tuus est, et resurrexit. Tamdiu con- 
tenditur de heereditate mortuorum, 
quamdiu testamentum proferatur in 
publicum; et cum testamentum pro- 
latum fuerit in publicum, tacent om- 
nes, ut tabule aperiantur et recitentur: 
judex intentus audit, advocati silent, 
preecones silentium faciunt, universus 
populussuspensus est, ut leganturverba 
mortui, non sentientis in monumento. 
Ille sine sensu jacet in monumento, et 
valent verba ipsius : sedet Christus in 
coelo, et contradicitur testamento Kjus? 
Aperi, legamus. Fratres sumus, quare 
contendimus ?] with this shift, that S. 
Augustine in another place [de Bap- 
tismo, lib. ii. cap. 7; lib. iv. cap. 6, 
and lib. v. cap. 23.] had rather use the 
testimony of tradition [non tam Scrip- 
turam quam traditionem apostolicam ] 
that is, the testimony nuncupativi, 
potius quam scripti, testamenti-—of the 
nuncupative, rather than the written 
will of Christ. Balduin. {[Annotat.]in 
S. Optat. lib. v. [apud Op., p. 145. ed. 
Dupin.] But thisisa mere shift. First, 
because it is petitio principii, the 
mere begging of the question. For 
we deny any testament of Christ but 
that which is written. And A. C. 
cannot show it in any one father of 
the Church, that Christ ever left be- 
hind him a nuncupative obligatory 
will. Secondly, because nothing is 
more plain in these two fathers, Op- 
tatus and 8. Augustine, than that 
both of them appeal to the written 
will, and make that the judge, with- 
out any exception, when a matter of 
faith comes in question. In Optatus 
the words are habemus in Evangelio, 
We have it in the Gospel. And in 
Evangelio inquiratur, Let it be in- 
quired in the Gospel. And Christ 
put it 2m tabulas diu duraturas, into 
written and lasting instruments. In 
S. Augustine the words are: Our 
Father did not die intestate, &c.; and 
tabulea pertantur, Let His will, His 


written instruments, be opened; and 
legantur verba mortui, Let the words 
of Him that died be read. And again, 
aperi, legamus; Open the will, and 
let us read. And legamus, quid 
litigamus ? Why do we strive? Let 
us read the will. And again, apert 
testamentum, lege; Open the will, 
read. All which passages are most 
express and full for His written will, 
and not for any nuncupative will, as 
Balduin would put upon us. And 
Hart, who takes the same way with 
Balduin, is not able to make it out, 
as appears by D. Rainoldes in his 
Conference with Hart, chap. 8, divis. i. 
p. 396, &e. [ed. London, 1609.] 

b Sect. xxviii. No.1. And so plainly 
8. Augustine, speaking of 8. Cyprian’s 
error about rebaptization, &c. says; 
Illis temporibus, ante quam plenarii 
concilii sententia quid in hac re se- 
quendum esset, totius ecclesize con- 
sensio confirmasset, visum est ei cum 
[ferme octoginta coepiscopis suis A fri- 
canarum ecclesiarum,| &¢.—De Bap- 
tism. contra Donatist. lib. i. cap. 18. 
[Op., tom. ix. col. 93. G.] So here is first 
sententia concilii ; and then the con- 
firmation of it is totiws ecclesie con- 
sensio, the consent of the whole Church 
yielding unto it. And so Gerson; 
[Attendendum tamen est, quod non 
omnia que tradit vel tolerat ecclesia 
publice legenda, sunt de necessitate 
salutis credenda....sed duntaxat illa 
quze sub definitione judiciali tradit 
esse credenda, vel opposita repro- 
banda,] concurrente universali totius 
ecclesiae consensu [implicite, vel ex- 
plicite, vere vel interpretative. ]|—In 
Declarat. Veritatum, que credendz 
sunt [46 necessitate salutis, ] § 4. [inter 
Gerson. Op., tom. i. col. 22. C. ed. 
Dupin. Antwerp. 1706.] For this, 
that the pope must confirm it, or else 
the General Council is invalid, is one 
of the Roman novelties. For this 
cannot be shown in any antiquity void 
of just exception. The truth is, the 
pope, as other patriarchs and great 
bishops used to do, did give his assent 
to such councils as he approved. But 
that is no corroboration of the council, 
as if it were invalid without it, but a 


Impediments to the calling a General Council allowed. 


II.—In the next place, A. C. interposes new matter quite 
out of the Conference. And first, in case of distractions and 
disunion in the Church, he would know “ what is to be donc 
to re-unite, when a General Council” (which is acknowledged 
a fit judge) “cannot be had by reason of manifold impedi- 
ments, or if, being called, will not be of one mind? Hath 
Christ our Lord,” saith he, “in this case provided no rule, no 
judge, infallibly to determine controversies, and to procure 
unity, and certainty of belief? Indeed, the Protestants admit 
no infallible means, rule, or judge, but only Scripture, which 
every man may interpret as he pleases, and so all shall be 
uncertain.” Truly, I must confess, there are many im- 
pediments to hinder the calling of a General Council. You 
know in the ancient Church there was! hindrance enough, 
and what hurt it wrought. And afterward, though it were 
long first, there was provision made for frequent calling of 
councils,* and yet no age since saw them called according to 
that provision in every circumstance: therefore “ impedi- 
ments” there were enough; or else some declined them wilfully, 
though there were no impediments. Nor will I deny but 
that when they were called there were as many practices 


to disturb or pervert the Councils.) 


declaration of his consenting with the 
rest. Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 4. No. 6. 

i (Canones generalium conciliorum ] 
a temporibus Constantini [cceperunt. 
In preecedentibus namque annis,] per- 
secutione seviente, [docendarum ple- 
bium minime dabatur facultas.Deinde, ] 
Christianitas in diversas hzereses scissa 
est, quia non erat licentia episcopis in 
unum convenire, nisi tempore supra- 
dicti Imperatoris.—Isidor. preefat. in 
Concil. [Origo Conciliorum genera- 
lium, quo tempore scil. concilia 
celebrari coeperunt; et de quatuor 
Conciliis principalibus: Ex Isidoro. 
Concil. tom. i. p. 5.] ed. Venetiis, 
per Nicolinum, 1585. [This short 
treatise occurs in the above edition 
before Isidore’s Preface, prefixed to the 
ordinary editions of the Councils. | 

k Frequens generalium conciliorum 
celebratio agri Dominici preecipua cul- 
tura est, [que vepres, spinas et tri- 
bulos heresum, errorum et schis- 
matum extirpat, excessus corrigit, 
deformata reformat, et vineam Domini 
ad frugem uberrime fertilitatis ad- 
ducit.] Illorum [vero] neglectus pree- 
missa disseminat atque fovet. Heec 


And these practices 


preeteritorum temporum recordatio et 
preesentium consideratio ante oculos 
nostros ponunt. [Ha propter hoc edicto 
perpetuo] sancimus, [decernimus atque 
ordinamus,| ut amodo concilia gene- 
ralia celebrentur ; ita quod primum 
a fine hujus concilii in quinquennium 
immediate sequens. Secundum vero a 
fineillius [mediate sequentis concilii] in 
septennium, et deinceps in decennium 
perpetuo celebretur, &¢.—Concil. Con- 
stant. Sess. xxxix. [Octob. 9. an. 1417.] 
apud Gerson. [Op.,] tom. i. p. 230. 
fed. Paris. 1606. et, tom. 11. col. 290. B. 
ed. Dupin. ]|—Et, Pet. de Aliaco Card. 
Cameracensis libellum obtulit in Con- 
cil. Constant. de Reformatione Eccle- 
siz contra opinionem eorum qui puta- 
runt concilia generalia minus neces- 
saria esse, quia omnia bene a patribus 
nostris ordinata sunt, &c.—In fascic. 
Rerum Expetendarum, [per Orthui- 
num Gratium, &c. ed. Colon. 1535. ] 
fol. 28. [ceviii.|— Et schismatibus debet 
ecclesia cito per concilia generalia 
provideri, ut in primitiva ecclesia 
docuerunt apostoli, us Act. vi. et 
Act. xv.—Ibid. fol. eciv. A. 

1 [Hoe est illud Homousion, quod 


917 
SECTION 
XXVI. 


A.C. pp.59, 
60. 


218 = Failing a General Council, what is the infallible rule in controversy. 


Conrrrence were able to keep many Councils from being all of one mind. 
ice. ibs being called, they will not be of one mind, I cannot 
~~~ help that; though that very not agreeing is a shrewd sign 
that the other spirit hath a party there against the Holy 

Ghost. 

IIIl.—NowA.C. would know what is to be done for reuniting 
of a Church divided in doctrine of the faith, when this 
remedy by a General Council cannot be had. “ Sure Christ 
our Lord,” saith he, “hath provided some rule, some judge, in 
such and such like cases, to procure unity and certainty of 
belief.” I believe so too; for He hath left an infallible rule, 
the Scripture. And that, by the manifest places in it which 
need no dispute, no external judge, is able to settle unity 
and certainty of belief in necessaries to salvation;™ and in 
non necessariis, in and about things not necessary, there 
ought not to be a contention to a separation.” 

IV.—And therefore A. C. does not well, to make that a 
crime, that the Protestants admit no infallible rule, but the 
Scripture only: or as he (I doubt, not without some scorn) 
terms it, beside “only Scripture.” For what need is there of 
another, since this is most infallible; and the same which 
the ancient Church of Christ admitted ?° And if it were 





in Concilio Niceeno adversus heereticos 
Arianos, a catholicis patribus veritatis 
auctoritate et auctoritatis veritate fir- 
matum est: quod postea] in concilio 
Ariminensi, [ propter novitatem verbi 
minus quam oportuit intellectum, 
quod tamen fides antiqua pepererat, | 
multis paucorum fraude deceptis, 
[hzeretica impietas, sub heretico im- 
peratore Constantio labefactare ten- 
tavit.] —S. Augustin. contra Maxi- 
minum Arianum, lib. iii. [ii.] cap. 14. 
{Op., tom. viii. col. 704. E. 

™ Non per difficiles nos Deus ad 
beatam vitam queestiones vocat, [nee 
multiplici eloquentis facundiz genere 
sollicitat.] In absoluto nobis et facili 
est zeternitas, Jesum [et] suscitatum a 
mortuis per Deum credere, et Ipsum 
esse Dominum confiteri. [Nemo ita- 
que ea, que ob ignorationem nostram 
dicta sunt, ad occasionem irreligios- 
itatis usurpet.]—S. Hilar. de Trini- 
tate, lib. x. ad fin. [sect. 70. Op., col. 
1080. E.] 

" [Quomodo ergo non perierunt 
Cyprianus et tot college ipsius? Qui 
cum crederent hereticos et schismati- 


cos baptismum non habere, sine bap- 
tismo [tamen] receptis, [eum peccata 
eorum tam immania tamque sacrilega 
super eos esse crederent,| eis tamen 
communicare, quam separari ab'unitate 
maluerunt, [dicente Cypriano, Nemi- 
nem judicantes, aut a jure commu- 
nionis aliquem si diversum senserit 
amoventes. |—S. Augustin.de Baptismo 
contra Donatistas, lib. ii. cap. 6. [Op., 
tom. ix. col. 100. B.]—[A talibus 
sacrilegis venientes, sine baptismo, ut 
dicitis, si] Cyprianum non contamina- 
bant, [quomodo yos contaminare 
poterant non convicti, sed conficti 
traditores ?]—Ibid. in fin. [eol. 101. D.] 

ο Recensuit cuncta sanetis Serip- 
turis consona. [kal περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὡς παρὰ 
αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ λόγου παρειληφὼς 
ὦ Πολύκαρπος, ἀπήγγελλε πάντα σύμ- 
φωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς.] --- Euseb. [Eccl.] 
Hist. lib. v. cap. 20. de Irenzeo, [apud 
Hist. Ecel. Seriptor. tom. i. p. 239. ed. 
Reading. |—Paracletus [autem multa 
habens edocere, que in illum distulit 
Dominus, secundum preefinitionem, 
ipsum primo Christum contestabitur, 


ee μανομννασω 


A rule required which is certain and known. 


sufficient for the ancient Church to guide them, and direct 
their councils, why should it be now held insufficient for 


us, at least till a free General Council may be had? 


And 


it hath both the conditions which Bellarmine requires to a 
rule; namely, that it “be certain, and that it be known ; 
for if it be not certain, it is no rule, and if it be not known, 


it is no rule to us.”’P 


qualem credimus, cum toto ordine Dei 
creatoris, et Ipsum glorificabit, et de 
Ipso commemorabit ; et sic] de prin- 
cipali regula agnitus, [illa multa que 
sunt disciplinarum revelabit, fidem di- 
cente pro eis integritate preedicationis, 
licet novis, quia nune revelantur; licet 
onerosis, quia nec nune sustinentur. ] 
—Tertullian. de Monogamia, cap. 2. 
[Op., p. 526. A. ed. Rigalt.] And this 
is true, though the author spoke it 
when he was lapsed.—[{ Nee necesse 
est ut singula deliramenta que pro- 
ferunt, brevior epistole sermo sub- 
vertat, quum et tu] ipsas Seripturas 
apprime tenens, [mon tam ad eorum 
mota sis quzestiones.] — 8. Hieron. 
[Epist.] ad Marcellum contra Monta- 
num, [xxvii. al. liv.] tom. ii. [Op., 
tom. iv. par. 2. 60]. 65. ed. Benedict.] 
—Hoe quia de scripturis non habet 
auctoritatem, eadem facilitate contem- 
nitur, qua probatur.— S. Hieron. 
(Comment. lib. 1ν.1 in Matth. cap. 
xxiii.35. Op., tom. iv. par. 1. col. 112. ] 
—Manifestus est fidei lapsus, et liqui- 
dum superbiz vitium, vel respuere 
aliquid eorum que Scriptura habet, 
vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum 
non est.—S. Basil. Serm. de Fide, 
tom. ii. p. 154. ed. Basileze, 1565. 
[φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως, K. τ. λ.--- 
S. Basil. de Fide, ΟΡ. , tom. ii. p. 224. 
D. ubi sup. p. 61. note 4 ]—Contra 
insurgentes hereses sepe pugnavi 
agraphis, verum non alienis a pia se- 
cundum Scripturam sententia.—Ibid. 
p- 153. [ubi sup. p. 69. note *.]—And 
before S. Basil, Tertullian. Adoro 
Scripture plenitudinem, [quee mihi et 
factorem manifestat et facta. In 
evangelio vero amplius et ministrum 
atque arbitrum rectoris invenio ser- 
monem. An autem dealiqua subja- 
centi materia facta sint omnia, nus- 
quam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse 
doceat Hermogenis officina.] Si non 
est scriptum, timeat, Vee illud, adji- 
cientibus aut detrahentibus destina- 
tum.—Tertullian. advers, Hermog. cap. 
xxii. [Op., p. 241. Ὁ. ed. Rigalt.] 
And Paulinus plainly calls it Regulam 


Now the Romanists dare not deny, but 


directionis, [in these words: Enutritus 
a puero in sacris literis... informa nos 
ad regulam directionis, pasce nos spiri- 
tali cibo, id est, verbo Dei, qui est verus 
et vivens panis, &c.|—Hpist. [ii. al.] 
xiii. [Op., S. Paulini Nolani Episcopi, 
p. 8. ed. Paris. 1685.]—De hac regula 
tria observanda sunt. 1. Regula est, 
sed atempore quo scripta. 2. Regula 
est, sed per ecclesiam applicanda, non 
per privatum spiritum. 3. Regula est, 
et mensurat omnia que continet : con- 
tinet autem omnia necessaria ad salu- 
tem vel mediate vel immediate. Ht 
hoe tertium habet[Gabr.] Biel. in ITT. 
[Sentent.] Dfistinct.] xxv. Q{ueest. ] 
unica, Conclus. 4. M. [ Praeterea omnes 
usum rationis habentes tenentur cre- 
dere quod omne revelatum a Deo est 
verum. Item quod Scriptura a Deo 
revelata sit vera; sed hoe credens 
explicite omnia credibilia credit im- 
plicite; cum omnia credenda sint 
revelata a Deo, et omnia continentur 
immediate vel mediate in Scriptura. | 
—And this is all we say. Hooker, 
Eecl. Polit. Book Y. ch. xxii. [sect. i. 
Works, vol.ii. p. 114. “ The voice and 
testimony of the Church acknowledg- 
ing Scripture to be the law of the 
living God, is for the truth and cer- 
tainty thereof, no mean evidence.... 
a further commodity this custom of 
public reading of the word of God 
hath, which is to furnish the very 
simplest and rudest soul with such in- 
fallible axioms and precepts of sacred 
truth, delivered even in the very letter 
of the Law of God, as may serve them 
for rules whereby to judge the better 
all other doctrines and instructions 
which they hear.” | 

P [Deinde] regula Catholicee fidei 
certa notaque esse debet: nam si nota 
non sit, regula nobis non erit; si certa 
non sit, ne regula quidem erit.—Bel- 
armin. de Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 2. § 5. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 3. C.J—At sacris 
Scripturis, [que propheticis et apo- 
stolicis literis continetur,] nihil est 
notius, nihil certius ; [ut stultissimum 
esse necesse sit, qui illis fidem esse 


219 


SECTION 


XXVI. 


220 


No living Judge sufficient to prevent Heresy. 


Coyrerencn this rule is “ certain ;”4 and that it is sufficiently ‘known ” 


WITH 
Fisurr. 


Judges vi. 


1Cor.xi.19. 


in the manifest places of it, and such as are necessary to 
salvation, none of the ancients did ever deny ; so there is 
an infallible rule. 

V.—Nor need there be such fear of a “ private spirit” in 
these manifest things, which being but read, or heard, teach 
themselves. Indeed, you Romanists had need of some other 
judge, and he a propitious one, to crush the pope’s “ more 
powerful principality” out of Pasce oves, “Feed My sheep.” 
And yet this must be the meaning (if you will have it), 
whether Gideon’s fleece be wet or dry ; that is, whether there 
be dew enough in the text to water that sense or no. But 
I pray, when God hath left His Church this infallible rule, 
what warrant have you to seek another? You have showed 
us none yet, whatever you think you have. And I hope 
A.C. cannot think it follows, that Christ our Lord hath 
provided no rule to determine necessary controversies, 
because He hath not provided the rule which he would have. 

VI.—Besides, let there be such a living judge, as A.C. 
would have, and let the pope™ be he; yet that is not sufficient 
against the malice of the devil, and impious men, to keep 
the Church at all times from renting, even in the doctrine 
of faith, or to solder the rents which are made. For oportet 
esse hereses, “ heresies there will be;” and heresies properly 
there cannot be, but in doctrine of the faith. And what 
will A. C. in this case do? Will he send Christ our Lord to 
provide another rule than the decision of the bishop of 
Rome, because he can neither make unity, nor certainty of 
belief? And as it is most apparent he cannot do it de facto, 
so neither hath he power from Christ over the whole Church 
to do it ; nay, out of all doubt, it is not the least reason why 


habendam neget.|—Bellarmin. Ibid. 
§ 6.[col. 3. D.] Therefore the'Holy Serip- 
ture is the rule of Catholic faith, both 
in itself, and to us also ; for in things 
simply necessary to Salvation it is 
abundantly known and manifest, as 
Sect. xvi. No. 5. [ubi sup. p. 74.] 

4 Conyenit [autem] inter nos et 
omnes omnino hereticos, verbum Dei 
esse regulam fidei; ex qua de dogma- 
tibus judicandum sit: [esse commune 
principium ab omnibus concessum, 
unde argumenta ducantur: denique 


esse gladium spiritualem, qui in hoc 
certamine recusari non possit. ]|—Bel- 
larmin. in Preefat. in fin. [Op.,] 
tom. i. And although there per- 
haps he includes traditions, yet that 
was never proved yet. Neither in- 
deed can he include traditions, for he 
speaks of that word of God, upon 
which all heretics consent: but con- 
cerning traditions, they all consent 
not, that they are a rule of faith, 
therefore he speaks not of them. 
τ For so he affirms, [A.C.] p. 58. 


Though the Ch.is a Kingdom, its Earthly Rule is not Monarchical. 


de facto he hath so little success, because de jure he hath 
no power given. But since A. C. requires another judge 
besides the Scripture, and, in cases when either the time is 
so difficult that a General Council cannot be called, or, the 
council so set, that they will not agree, let us see how he 
proves it. 

VII.—It is thus: “Every earthly kingdom,” saith he, 
“when matters cannot be composed by a parliament, which 
cannot be called upon all occasions,” (Why doth he not add 
here, “and which being called, will not always be of one 
mind,” as he did add it in case of the council?) “hath, be- 
sides the law books, some living magistrates and judges, and 
above all, one visible king, the highest judge, who hath 
authority sufficient to end all controversies, and settle unity 
in all temporal affairs. And shall we think that Christ, the 
wisest King, hath provided in His kingdom, the Church, only 
the law-books of the Holy Scripture, and no living visible 
judges, and above all, one chief, so assisted by His Spirit, as 
may suffice to end all controversies for unity and certainty 
of faith? which can never be, if every man may interpret 
Holy Scripture, the law-books, as he 1150. This is a very 
plausible argument with the many, but the foundation of 
it is but a similitude ;* and if the similitude hold not in the 
main, the argument is nothing; and so, I doubt, it will prove 
here. I will observe particulars, as they le in order. 

VIII.—And first, he will have the whole militant Church, 
for of that we speak, “a kingdom.” But this is not certain ; 
for they are no mean ones, which think our Saviour Christ 
left the Church militant, in the hands of the apostles and 
their successors, in an aristocratical, or rather, a mixed 
government ; and that the Church is not monarchical,' 


5. Que [autem] subtilissime de hoe similibus, si similiter se habent.) 


disputari possunt, ita ut non simili- 
tudinibus que plerumque fallunt, sed 
rebus ipsis satis fiat, [ne in preesentia 
expectes. |—S. Augustin. [lib. | de quan- 
titate anime, cap. xxxii. [Op., tom. i. 
col. 433. F.] Whereupon the logi- 
cians tell us rightly, that this is a 
fallacy, nnless it be taken reduplica- 
tive, i.e. de similibus que similia 
sunt. Andhence Aristotle himself, 2. 
Top. Loc. xxxii. says: πάλιν ἐπὶ τῶν 
ὁμοίων, εἰ ὁμοίως ἔχει: (rursum in 


[οἷον, εἰ ἐπιστήμη μία πλειόνων, καὶ 
δόξα" καὶ εἰ τὸ ὄψιν ἔχειν ὁρᾷν, καὶ τὸ 
ἀκοὴν ἔχειν ἀκούειν" ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ 
τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὄντων καὶ τῶν 


doxovytwy'—Aristot. Topic. lib. il. 
cap. 10. Op., tom. i. p. 294. ed. 
Bekker. | 


t When Gerson wrote his tract De 
Auferibilitate Paps, sure he thought 
the Church might continue in a very 
good being, without a monarchieal 
head ; therefore, in his judgment, the 


221 


SECTION 
DROOVAle 


A.C, p. 60. 


222 lis Constitution is Aristocratical under Bishops. 
Coxrerence Otherwise than the triumphant and militant make one body 
Fisurn, under Christ the Head. And in this sense indeed, and in 
this only, the Church is a most absolute kingdom. And the 
very expressing of this sense is a full answer to all the 
places of Scripture, and other arguments brought by Bellar- 
mine," to prove that the Church is a monarchy. But the 
Church being as large as the world, Christ thought it fitter 
to govern it aristocratically—by divers, rather than by one 
viceroy. And I believe this is true; for all the time of the first 
three hundred years, and somewhat better, it was governed 
aristocratically, if we will impartially consider, how the bishops 
of those times carried the whole business of admitting any 
new consecrated bishops or others to, or rejecting them from, 
their communion. For I have carefully examined this for 
the first six hundred years, even to and within the time 
of S. Gregory the Great ;* who, in the beginning of the 
seventh hundred year, sent such letters to Augustine, then 
archbishop of Canterbury, and to Quirinus,’ and other 





Church is not by any command or 
institution of Christ, monarchical. 
[Non in eo versatur iste tractatus ut 
papam ab ecclesia penitus auferri 
posse ostendat, ut quidam perperam 
existimarunt, sed in eo scilicet, hoe 
contingere posse, ut Heclesia careat 
per aliquod tempus pontifice, necnon 
in nonnullis casibus ab ecclesia posse 
deponi. — Libell. de auferibilitate 
pape ab ecclesia, apud] Gerson. 
[Op., tom. ii. col. 209. ed. Dupin.] 
par. 1. p. 154. [ed. 1606.]—When 
S. Jerome wrote thus: Ubicunque 
fuerit episcopus, sive Rome, sive 
Eugubii; sive Constantinopoli, sive 
Rhegii; sive Alexandria, sive Tanis, 
ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et 
sacerdotii. —S. Hieron. Epist. [ad 
Evangelum, al.] Evagrium, [cii. Op., 
tom. iv. par. 2. col. 803.] doubt- 
less he thought not of the Roman 
bishop’s monarchy. For what bishop 
is of the same merit, or of the same 
degree in the priesthood, with the 
pope, as things are now carried at 
Rome ?—.\ffirmamus etiam, patribus, 
et Greecis et Latinis, ignotas esse 
voces de Petro aut Papa monarcha et 
monarchia. Nam quod in superiori- 
bus observabamus, reperiri eas dic- 
tiones positas pro episcopo et episco- 
patu, nihil hoe ad rem facit.—Isaacus 
Casaubon. Exercitatione xv. ad An- 


nales Heclesiasticos Baronii, ὃ xii. 
p. 378. [p. 272. ed. Francof. 1615.] 
et ὃ xi. p. 360. [ibid. pp. 256—262. | 
diserte asserit et probat ecclesiz regi- 
men aristocraticum fuisse. 

« [Nam secundum Scripturas ec- 
clesia non est democratia, vel aristo- 
eratia, sed monarchia, sive regnum 
Christi, juxta illud Ps. ii. Ego autem 
constitutus sum Rex, &e.; et Luce, 
cap. i, Regni Ejus non erit finis; et 
Joann. xviii. Regnum Meum non 
est, &c. .. . Denique Scriptura passim 
vocat Christum regem, &c.]—Bellar- 
min. de Conciliforum auctoritate,] lib. 
11, cap. 16. § 1, 2, 3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
93. C.] 

* §. Gregor. [Magn. Registr.] Epis- 
tol. lib. ix. Epist. lviii. [lib. xi. 
Indict. 4. Epist. xxviii. Op., tom. ii. 
col. 1109. E.]—Et, lib. xii. Epist. xv. 
[lib. xi. Indict. 4, Epist. lxiv, Ixv. 
Op., tom. ii. col. 1150. B. et seqq.] 

Σ Κα, Gregor. [Magn. Registr. Epis- 
tol. | lib. ix. Epist. lxi. [lib. xi. Indict. 
4. Epist. Ixvii. Op., tom. ii. col. 1166. 
D. This epistle the Benedictine editors, 
following the authority of Peter de 
Marea, Cardinal Bona, and others, in- 
scribe Quirico, et czeteris episcopis in 
Hiberia—not Hibernia—Catholicis. 
It seems impossible that the epistle 
could have been addressed to any Irish 
bishops, not only because its subject is 





This argued further from relation of the Church to the State. 


bishops in Ireland. And I find, that the litere communicato- 
ri@, which certified from one great patriarch to another who 
were fit or unfit to be admitted to their communion, if they 
upon any occasion repaired to their sees, were sent mutually ; 
and as freely, and in the same manner, from Rome to the 
other patriarchs, as from them to it. Out of which I think 
this will follow most directly, That the Church government 
then was aristocratical. For had the bishop of Rome been 
then accounted sole monarch of the Church, and been put 
into the definition of the Church, as he is now by Bellar- 
mine,” all these communicatory letters should have been 
directed from him to the rest, as whose admittance ought to 
be a rule for all to communicate; but not from others to 
him, or at least not in that even, equal, and brotherly way, 
as now they appear to be written. For it is no way proba- 
ble that the bishops of Rome, which even then sought their 
own greatness too much, would have submitted to the other 
patriarchs voluntarily, had not the very course of the Church 
put it upon them. 

IX.—Besides, this is a great and undoubted rule, given by 
Optatus,* “'That wheresoever there is a Church, there the 
Church is in the commonwealth, not the commonwealth in 
the Church. And so also the Church was in the Roman 
empire.” Now from this ground I argue thus: If the 
Church be within the empire or other kingdom, it is impos- 
sible the government of the Church should be monarchical. 
For no emperor or king will endure another king within his 
dominion that shall be greater than himself, since the very 
enduring it makes him that endures it, upon the matter, no 
monarch. Nor will it disturb this argument, that two great 
kings in France and Spain permit this. For he that is not 
blind may see, if he will, of what little value the pope’s 


the reception of Nestorians into the 
Church, while the heresy of Nestorius 
does not appear to have extended 
beyond the Oriental Church ; but be- 
cause an allusion is made to the fact, 
that the legate of the bishops, to whom 
8. Gregory was addressing himself, 
had lost certain letters at Jerusalem.| 

z Nostra autem [sententia est, 
Ecclesiam unam tantum esse, non 
duas, et illam unam et veram esse 
cetum hominum ejusdem Christianse 


fidei professione, et eorundem sacra- 
mentorum communione colligatum, 
sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, 
ac precipue unius Christi in terris 
Vicarii Romani Pontificis.]—Bellar- 
min. de Hcclesia Militante, lib. iii. 
cap. 2. § 9. [Op., tom. ii. col. 108. D.] 

@ Non enim respublica est in eccle- 
sia: sed ecclesia in republica: id est, in 
imperio Romano.—S. Optat. [ Milevit. | 
lib. iii. [cap. 5. Op., p. 52. ubi sup. 
p. 195. note *.] 


223 


SECTION 
ΧΟΧΘΟΝΗ: 





224 


The Law of Appeals shows this Aristocratic Constitution. 


Coxrerrnce power is in those kingdoms, farther than to serve their own 


WITH 
Fisuerr. 





turns of him, which they do to their great advantage. Nay, 
farther, the ancient canons and fathers of the Church seem 
to me plain for this, for the Council of Antioch” submits 
ecclesiastical causes to the bishops. And what was done 
amiss by a bishop, was corrigible by a synod of bishops,° 
but this with the metropolitan.4 And in case these did not 
agree, the metropolitan® might call in other bishops out of 
the neighbouring provinces. And if things settled not this 
way, a General Council, under the Scripture,‘ and directed 
by it, was the highest remedy. And S. Cyprian, even to 
Pope Cornelius himself, says plainly, that “to every bishop 
is ascribed a portion of the flock for him to govern.” And 
so not all committed to one. In all this the government 
of the Church seems plainly aristocratical. And if all other 
arguments fail, we have one left from Bellarmine, who 
opposes it as much as any, twice for failing." And yet, 
where he goes to exclude secular princes from Church 


Ὁ Concil. Antioch. [an. 341.] Can. 
ix. p. 507. [Concil. tom. ii. col. 565. A. 
Τοὺς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισκόπους 
εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει προε- 
στῶτα ἐπίσκοπον, Kat τὴν φροντίδα ava- 
δέχεσθαι πάσης τῆς ἐπαρχίας" κ. τ. λ.} 

© Cone. Niceen. I. [an. 325.] Can. v. 
[Concil. tom. ii. col. 32. B. ἵνα κοινῇ 
πάντων τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπὶ 
τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένων, τὰ τοιαῦτα ζητή- 
ματα ἐξετάζοι" κ. τ. A.) — Et, Concil. 
Antioch. Can. xii. [ubi sup. col. 568. A. 
εἴ τις ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου Kabaipe- 
θεὶς .... δέον ἐπὶ μείζονα ἐπισκόπων 
σύνοδον τρέπεσθαι .... προσαναφέρειν 
πλείοσιν ἐπισκόποις" κ. τ. A.| 

4 Concil. Nieen. I. Can. iv. [ubi 
sup. col 30. BE. τὸ δὲ κῦρος τῶν γινο- 
μένων δίδοσθαι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν τῷ 
μητροπολίτη.]---Εἰ, Concil. Antioch. 
Can. ix. [ubi sup. col. 565. C. περαιτέρω 
δὲ μηδὲν πράττειν ἐπιχειρεῖν δίχα τοῦ 
Tis μητροπόλεως ἐπισκόπου᾽ κ. τ. A. | 

ὁ Concil. Antioch. Can. xiv. [ubi sup. 
col. 568. D. εἴ ris ἐπίσκοπος ἐπί τισιν 
ἐγκλήμασιν κρίνοιτο, ἔπειτα συμβάιη 
περὶ αὐτοῦ διαφωνεῖν τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ 
ἐπισκόπους, τῶν μὲν ἀθῴον τὸν κρινόμενον 
ἀποφαψόντων, τῶν δὲ ἔνοχον" ὑπὲρ 
ἀπαλλαγῆς πάσης ἀμφιβητήσεως, ἔδοξε 
τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ τὸν τῆς μητροπόλεως 
ἐπίσκοπον ἀπὸ τῆς πλησιοχώρου ἐπαρ- 
χίας μετακαλεῖσθαι ἑτέρους τινὰς τὸυς 


ἐπικρινοῦντας, καὶ τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν 
διαλύσοντας, τοῦ βεβαιῶσαι σὺν τοῖς τῆς 
ἐπαρχίας τὸ παριστάμενον. 

f (Quis autem nesciat sanctam] 
Scripturam canonicam, [tam veteris 
quam novi Testamenti, certis suis ter- 
minis contineri, eamque omnibus pos- 
terioribus episcoporum literis ita} 
preeponi, {ut de illa omnino dubitari 
et disceptari non possit, utrum verum 
vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea 
scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum 
autem literas, &c.]|—S. Augustin. de 
Baptismo contra Donatist. lib, ii. cap. 
3. [Op., tom. ix. col. 98. A.] 

& Nam cum statutum sit ab] omni- 
bus nobis, [et equum sit pariter ac 
justum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic 
audiatur ubi est crimen admissum, ] 
et singulis pastoribus portio gregis 
[sit adscripta, quam regat unusquis- 
que et gubernet, rationem sui actus 
Domino redditurus, &c. ]—S. Cyprian. 
lib. i. Ep. 3. [Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, 
p- 86. ed. Benedict. ] 

h (Quod non sit ecclesiasticum re- 
gimen precipue penes episcopos.]— 
Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 8. 
tN tit. Op., tom. i. col. 526. D.|—Et, 

Non esse in Conciliosummam potes- 
tatem.]—Id. de Concilijorum auctori- 
tate,] lib. ii cap. 16. [in tit. Op, tom. 
ii. col. 93. C.] 


The Papal Scheme tends to the sway of one Temporal Empire. 225 


government, all his quotations! and all his proofs run upon  Srcrroy 
this head, to show “ that the government of the Church was ἘΣῸΣ 
ever in the bishops.” What says A. C. now to the con- 
fession of this great adversary, and in this great point, 
extorted from him by force of truth? Nowif this be true, 
then the whole foundation of this argument is gone. The 
Church militant is no kingdom, and therefore not to be 
compared or judged by one: the resemblance will not 
hold. 

X.—Next, suppose it a kingdom; yet the Church mili- 
tant remaining one, is spread in many earthly kingdoms, 
and cannot well be ordered like any one particular kingdom.* 
And therefore, though in' one particular kingdom there be '[as... 

be : - (male) 
many visible judges and one supreme, yet it follows not jay 
that in the universal militant Church there must be one 1686.] 
supreme. For how will he enter to execute his office, 
if the kings of those kingdoms will not give leave? 

XI.—Now here, though A. C. expresses himself no farther, 
yet I well know what he and his fellows would be at. They 
would not be troubled to ask leave of any several kings in 
their several dominions. No; they would have one emperor 
over all the kings, as well as one pope over all the bishops. 

And then you know who told us of “ two great lights to 
govern the world, the sun and the moon—that is, the pope 


A.C. pp.64, 


65. 


? (Quod non sit ecclesiasticum regi- 
men peues principes seeculares. |—Bel- 
larmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 7. 
[in tit. Op., tom. i. 60]. 522. D.} 

k [Et ideo] licet sit expediens, quod 
uni populo partiali fideli presit unus 
episcopus, non expedit tamen quod toti 
populo fideli preesit unus solus. Tum 
quia omnia negotia unius populi par- 
tialis potest sustinere unus solus; 
nullus autem unus potest sustinere 
omnia negotia etiam majora omnium 
Christianorum: tum quia minus 
malum est, ut populus partialis et 
parvus inficiatur ab uno episcopo, 
quam ut totus, vel fere totus, populus 
Christianus inficiatur ab uno capite, 
quod omnibus preesit—Ockam. ial, 
lib. 11. tract. 1) par. 3: cap. 30) δα 8. 
[apud Goldast. S.Rom. Imper. Monarch. 
tom. ii. pp. 818, 819. ed. Francof. 1614. 
These dialogues are, according to Tho- 
rold, (‘T.C.,—Laud’s Labyrinth, p. 254.) 
in the Index Expurgatorius. ] And be- 
sides this of Ockam, to that common 


VOL. I1.—LAUD. 


argument, That monarchical govern- 
ment isthe best, and therefore undoubt- 
edly that which Christ instituted for his 
Church, it is sufficient to answer, That 
a monarchy is the best form of govern- 
ment in one city or country. Aristot. 
Ethic. [Nicom.] lib. viii. cap. 10. 
[τούτων δὲ βελτίστη μὲν ἣ βασιλεία ... 
παρέκβασις δὲ βασιλείας μὲν τυραννίς" 
ἄμφω γὰρ jovapxia.—Op., tom. ix. 
p. 166. ed. Bekker.] But it follows 
not, that it is the best in respect of 
the whole world, where the parts are 
so remote, and the dispositions of men 
so various. And therefore Bellarmine 
himself confesses, Monarchiam aristo- 
cratize et democratiz admixtam utilio- 
rem esse in hac vita, quam simplex 
monarchia est.—[Bellarmin.] de Rom. 
Pont. lib. i. cap. 3. § 1. [in tit. Op., 
tom. i. col. 515. ©. Bellarmine’s words 
are: Regimen temperatum ex omni- 
bus tribus formis, propter nature 
humanze corruptionem, utilius est, 
quam simplex monarchia, &c. | 


Q 


226 Application of the type of the Sun and Moon, 
Coyrerencr and the emperor.”! At the first it began with more modesty— 
Frenne, the emperor and the pope; and that was somewhat tolerable. 


For 8. Augustine tells us," “ that the militant Church is 
often in Scripture called the moon, both for the many 
changes it hath, and for its obscurity in many times of its 
peregrination.” And he tells us too, “that if we will 
understand this place of Scripture in a spiritual sense, our 
Saviour Christ is the sun, and the militant Church, as being 
full of changes in her estate, the moon.’”’”" But now it must be 
a triumphant Church here—militant no longer. The pope 
must be the sun, and the emperor but the moon. And 
lest Innocent’s own power should not be able to make good 
his Decretal, Gaspar Schioppius® doth not only avow the 


' Tn the first gloss, ascribed to 
Isidore, in Gen. i. 16. it is, Per solem 
intelligitur regnum ; per lunam, sacer- 
dotium. [This passage does not occur 
literally either in the Gloss. Ordinar. 
or in S. Isidore in Genesin, from 
which it is taken. In one passage on 
Gen. i. 16. S. Isidore says: Lumi- 
naria in firmamento, id est, legis 
doctores, SS. inheerentes, &c.... 
siderum turba, id est, virorum sancto- 
rum numerositas; and in another 
cited from him as the Gloss on Gen. i. 
19. : Splendor siquidem solis regni 
figurat excellentiam, plebem obtem- 
perantem regi lune splendor osten- 
dit, tanquam synagogam. Stelle vero 
principes ejus sunt, ὅθ, This last 
place is slightly varied from S. Isi- 
dore’s Comment. in Genesin, cap. ii. 
Op., tom. vy. p. 266. ed. Lorenzane ; 
et, cap. 111. p. 285. A. ed. Colon. 1617. } 
But Innocent the Third, almost six 
hundred years after Isidore’s death, 
perverts both text and gloss, thus: 
Ad firmamentum [igitur] cceli, hoe 
est, universalis ecclesia, fecit Deus 
duo magna luminaria, id est, duas 
instituit dignitates, qua sunt ponti- 
ficalis auctoritas et regalis potestas. 
[Sed illa, quee preeest diebus, id est, 
spiritualibus, major est: que vero 
carnalibus, minor:] ut quanta [est] 
inter solem et lunam, tanta inter pon- 
tifices et reges differentia cognoscatur. 
—Epist. ad Imperat. Constantino- 
politanum, fan. 1198.] Decret. [4]. 
Gregor. [X.] lib. i. de Majoritate et 
Obedientia, tit. 33. cap. [6.] Solite. 

m (Ecclesia vero adhuc in ista mor- 
talitale carnis constituta,| propter 
[ipsam] mutabilitatem, lune nomine 


in scripturis signatur. [ Unde est illud 
Ps. x. 3. (secundum LXX.) Paraverunt 
sagittas suas in pharetra, ut sagittent 
in obscura luna rectos corde.|—S. 
Augustin. Epist. exix. cap. 6. [ad in- 
quisitiones Januarii, lib. 11. seu Hpist. 
ly. cap. 6. Op., tom. ii. col. 131. E.] 

" [Fecit lunam in tempora :] Intel- 
ligimus spiritaliter ecclesiam [cres- 
centem de minimo, et ista mortalitate 
vitze quodam modo senescentem : sed 
ut propinquet ad solem. Non istam 
lunam dico visibilem oculis, sed quze 
hoe nomine significatur. Ista quando 
obscura erat ecclesia, quando nondum 
apparebat, nondum eminebat, seduce- 
bantur homines, et dicebatur, Heec 
est ecclesia, hic est Christus: ut sa- 
gittarent in obscura luna rectos corde 
(Ps. x. 3.).... Hic enim temporaliter 
transit Ecclesia: non enim hic erit 
semper ista mortalitas. Augeri et 
minui aliquando transibit: in tem- 
pora facta est. Sol agnovit occasum 
suum.] Et hie quis sol, nisi sol [1116] 
justitize, [quem sibi non ortum impiii 
plangent in die judicii !|—S. Augustin. 
in Ps. cili. [Enarr. Sermoiii. 19. Op., 
tom. iv. col. 1163. B.—Cf. Enarr. in 
Ps. x. ibid. col. 59. C.] 

° Gasp[ar] Schiop[pius, in] L{ibro] 
dicto Ecclesiasticus, [auctoritati Sere- 
nissimi D. Jacobi Magnz Britannize 
Regis oppositus. ] cap. 145. (Scioppius 
is meeting an argument derived from 
Pope Innocent’s words, against the 
union of spiritual and temporal 
supremacy in the Pope. The points 
of correspondence which he _inci- 
dentally gives are these: Sicut luna 
proprium lumen non habet, sed id a 
sole mutuatur: sie etiam seculari 


by Pope Innocent the Third. 


allusion or interpretation, but is pleased to express many 


circumstances, in which he would fain make the world _ 


believe the resemblance holds. And lest any man should 
not know how much the pope is made greater than the 
emperor by this comparison, the Gloss? furnishes us with that 
too, and tells us “ that by this it appears, that since the earth 
1s seven times greater than the moon, and the sun eight 
times greater than the earth, it must needs follow, that the 
pope’s power is forty-seven times greater than the emperor’s.” 
T like him well—he will make odds enough. But what, doth 
Innocent the Third give no reason of this his Decretal? Yes. 
And it is, saith he, “ because the sun, which rules in the 
day, that is, in spiritual things, is greater than the moon, 
which rules but in the night, and in carnal things.Ӣ But is it 
possible that Innocentius the Third, being so wise and so able, 
as “that nothing which he did, or commended, or disproved 
in all his life, should after his death be thought fit to be 
changed,” * could think that such an allusion of spiritual 
things to the day, which the sun governs, and worldly business 
to the night, which the moon governs, should carry weight 
enough with it to depress imperial power lower than God hath 
made it? Out of doubt he could not; for he well knew that 
omnis anima, “ every soul,” was to “be subject to the higher 


potestati spiritualis auctoritatem pree- 
bet, cum ei etiam propter conscien- 
tiam subditos esse jubet. Et sicut 
luna videtur luminare magnum cum 
tamen multis stellarum minor sit; 
similiter seecularis potestas amplis- 
sima videtur, cum tamen sacerdotio 
longe sit inferior.—P. 527. ed. Hart- 
bergee, 1611. ] 

Ρ ΤΟΊ ΕΣ cum terra sit septies major 
luna, sol autem octies major terra; 
restat ergo ut pontificalis dignitas 
quadragesies septies sit major regali 
dignitate.— Gloss. in Decret. preedict. 
Where, first, the Gloss is out in his 
Latin: he might have said quadra- 
gies, for quadragesies is no word. 
Next, he is out in his arithmetic ; for 
eight times seven makes not forty- 
seven, but fifty-six; and then he is 
much to blame for drawing down the 
pope’s power from fifty-six to forty- 
seven. [The margin of the Gloss adds: 
Alias, quinquagies septies ;—of which 
the arithmetic is also open to Laud’s 
remark.| And, lastly, this allusion 


hath no ground of truth at all; for the 
emperor being solo Deo minor, (Ter- 
tul. ad Scap.) cannot be a moon to any 
other sun. [Tertullian’s words are: 
Colimus ergo et imperatorem sic, quo- 
modo et nobis licet, et ipsi expedit, ut 
hominem a Deo secundum ; et quic- 
quid est, a Deo consecutum, et solo Deo 
minorem. Hoc et ipse volet. Sic enim 
omnibus major est, dum] solo Deo 
[vero] minor fest. Sic et ipsis Diis 
major est, dum etipsi in potestate sunt 
ejus. Itaque et sacrificamus pro salute 
imperatoris, sed Deo nostro et ipsius, 
sed quomodo przcepit Deus, pura 
prece.—Tertullian. ad Scap. cap. ii. 
Op., p. 69.] 

4 Sed illa potestas, quee preeest die- 
bus, ἡ. 6. in spiritualibus, major est ; 
quee vero carnalibus, minor.—Inno- 
cent. III. ubisup. [p. 226. note !.] 

τ | Cujus vita adeo probata fuit, | ut 
post ejus mortem, nil earum rerum, 
quee in vita egerit, laudaverit, improba- 
veritque, immutatum sit.—Platina in 
vita Innocent. III.[ Vit. Pontific. p.214.] 


Q 2 


227 


SEcTION 
XXVI. 


Rom. xiii. 
1 


228 Antiquity teaches the subordination of the Clergy to the Civil power. 


CoNFERENCE power.” 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


temporal. 


And “the higher power” * there mentioned, is the 
And the ancient fathers‘ come in with a full 


consent, that omnis anima, “every soul,’ comprehends there 
all without any exception; all spiritual men, even to the 
highest bishop, and in spiritual causes too, so the foundations 
of faith and good manners be not shaken; and where they 
are shaken, there ought to be prayer and patience, there 


ought not to be opposition by force. 


Nay, he knew well, 


that emperors and kings" are custodes utriusque tabule, 


s Patres veteres, et preesertim Au- 
gustin. Hpist. liv. [ad Macedonium, 
et Chrysostomus (vy. infra,) presenti 
loco,] Apostolum interpretantur de 
potestate seeculari tantum loqui, quod 
et ipse textus subindicat, &¢.—Sal- 
meron. Disput. iv. in Rom. xiii. § [5. 
Salmeron. Comment. &c. tom. xiii. 
p. 676.] 

τ [καὶ δεικνὺς ὅτι] πᾶσι ταῦτα διατάτ- 
τεται, καὶ ἵερευσι, [ καὶ μοναχοῖς, οὐχὶ 
τοῖς βιωτικοῖς μένον, ἐκ προοιμίων αὐτὸ 
δῆλον ἐποίησεν οὕτω λέγων" πᾶσα ψυχὴ, 
κι τ. X. κἂν ἀποστόλος ἧς, κἂν ευἀγγε- 
λιστής, κἂν προφήτης, κἂν ὁστισοῦν" 
οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀνατρέπτει τὴν εὐσέβειαν αὕτη 
ἡ ὑποταγή.] Omnibus ista imperantur, 
et sacerdotibus, et monachis, &c. 
Etiamsi apostolus sis, si evangelista, 
si propheta, sive quisquis tandem 
fueris.—S. Chrysostom. [in Epist.] ad 
Rom. Homil xxiii. [1. Op., tom. ix. 
p. 686. B.]—Sive est sacerdos [ali- 
415,1 sive antistes, &c.——Theodoret. 
in Rom. xiii. [εἴτε ἱερεὺς τίς ἐστὶν, 
εἴτε ἀρχιερεὺς, εἴτε τὸν μονήρη βίον 
ἐπαγγελλύμενος, τοῖς τὰς ἀρχὰς πεπι- 
στευμένοις eixétw.—Theodoret. Op., 
tom. 111. p. 99. Ὁ. ed. Paris. 1642.]— 
[Omnis anima (inquit Rom. xiii. 1.) 
potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. ] 
Si omnis et vestra. Quis vos excipit 
ab universitate? [Si quis tentat ex- 
cipere, conatur decipere. Nolite illo- 
rum acquiescere consiliis, qui eum 
sint Christiani, Christi tamen vel 
sequi facta, vel obsequi dictis, op- 
probrio ducunt.}] Ipsi sunt qui vobis 
dicere solent, servate vestre sedis 
honorem. [Decebat quidem ex vobis: 
vobis commissam ecclesiam crescere ; 
nune vero saltem in illa quam sus- 
cepistis maneat dignitate. Et vos 
enim vyestro preedecessore impoten- 
tior? Si non crescit per vos, non 
decrescat per vos, Haecisti.] Christus 
aliter et jussit et gessit. [Reddite, 
ait, quee sunt Ceesaris, Cesari; et 


que sunt Dei, Deo.]—S. Bernard. 
Epist. xlii. ad Henricum Senonensem 
Archiepiscopum, [Op., fol. 199. col. 4. 
M. ed. Paris. 1551.]—And, Theophy- 
lact. in Rom.-xili. [παιδεύων πᾶσαν 
ψυχὴν, Kav ἱερεὺς ἢ τις, κἂν μοναχὸς, 
κἀν ἀπόστολος, ὑποτάσσεσθαι τοῖς ἄρ- 
xovo.wv.—Theophylact.in Epist.D. Pauli 
Comment. ed. Lindsell. Londin. 1636.] 
Where it is very observable, that 
Theophylact lived in the time of Pope 
Gregory the Seventh, and S. Bernard 
after it, and yet this truth obtained 
then; and this was about the year 
1130. 

« An forte de religione fas non est 
ut dicat imperator, vel quos miserit 
imperator? cur ergo ad imperatorem 
vestri venere legati? cur eum fece- 
runt cause suze judicem, non secuturi 
quod ille judicaret?—§. Augustin. 
contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. i. 
cap. 9. [Op., tom. ix. col. 20. D.]— 
[Sed quorsum ista dicuntur?] num- 
quidnam, etiam si obtineant non 
pertinere ad imperatorem adversus 
eos aliquid statuere, qui prava in 
religione sectantur, [propterea si in- 
terfecerit eos, quos punierit martyres 
erunt ?]—Ibid. [60]. 20. E.] Nor can 
this be said to be usurpation in the 
Emperor. For elsewhere 8. Augus- 
tine speaks thus: [An forte sicut 
quidam dixit, quod quidem cum 
vobis diceretur, displicuit ; sed tamen 
pretermittendum non est: ait enim 
quidam, Non debuit episcopus pro- 
consulari judicio purgari: quasi vero 
ipse sibi hoc comparaverit, ac non] 
imperator [ita queri jusserit;] ad 
cujus curam, de qua rationem Deo 
redditurus esset, res illa maxime 
pertinebat. [Arbitrum enim et judi- 
cem cause traditionis et schismatis 
illi eum fecerant, &e.|—S. Augustin. 
Kpist. elxii. [Epist. xliii. ad Glorium 
et Eleusium, Xe. cap. 4. Op., tom. ii. 
col. 93. G.] and, [Postea vero quam 


The power of Kings in Ecclesiastical causes under the Law. 


“they, to whom the custody and preservation of both tables 
of the law,” for worship to God and duty to man, “ are com- 
mitted ;” that a book of the law was, by God’s own com- 
mand in Moses’ time, to be given the king; that the 
kings under that law, but still according to it, did proceed 
to necessary reformations in Church businesses ; and therein 
commanded the very priests themselves, as appears in the 
acts of Hezekiah and Josiah, who yet were never censured, 
to this day, for usurping the high priest’s office. Nay, he 
knew full well, that the greatest emperors for the Church’s 
honour—Theodosius the Elder, and Justinian, and Charles 
the Great, and divers others—did not only meddle now and 
then, but did enact laws, to the great settlement and increase 
of religion in their several times. But then, if this could 
not be the reason why Innocentius made this strange 
allusion, what was? Why, truly, I will tell you: The pope 
was now grown to a great and a firm height. Gregory the 
Seventh* had set the popedom upon a broad bottom, before 
this Innocent’s time; so that now it is the less wonder if 
he make so bold with the emperor as to depress him as low 
as the moon, upon no better ground than a groundless 


ceepit impleri quod scriptum est, 
(Ps. Ixxi. 11.) Et adorabunt Eum 
omnes reges terre, &c.] quis mente 
sobrius regibus dicat, Nolite curare 
in regno vestro a quo teneatur, vel 
oppugnetur, ecclesia Domini vestri: 
{non ad vos pertineat, in regno vestro 
quis velit esse sive religiosus, sive sacri- 
legus: quibus dici non potest, Non ad 
vos pertineat, in regno vestro quis velit 
pudicus esse, quis impudicus?]—S. Au- 
gustin. Epist. iv. [lib. de correctione 
Donatist. seu Epist. clxxxv. ad Boni- 
facium, cap. 5. Up., tom. ii. col. 651. E.] 
—{Ideo dictum est a Paulo: Potestas 
sit terrori malo operi, et honori bono : 
et] antiquitas recte dixit, Magistratus 
est custos legis, scilicet primee et 
secundee tabula, quod ad disciplinam 
attinet. — Confessio Saxonica, cap. 
xxiii. [apud Syllog Confess. p. 314. 
ed. Oxon. 1827.]—Ht,: | Magistratui 
divinitus commissa est custodia legis 
divine ; jam vero ad legem divinam 
pertinet non solum posterior decalogi 
tabula de officiis proximo preestandis, 
verum etiam prior de cultu divino, 
ejusque publico exercitio. ... (Deut. 


xvii. 18.)... Ex quibus omnibus sie 
concludimus : Cui custodia legis 
divine est commissa, ad illum quoque 
spectat religionis et sacrorum cura. 
Sed magistratui commissa est legis 
divine custodia. Ergo ad magistra- 
tum etiam spectat religionis et sacro- 
rum cura.|—Gerhardus, Locor. Theo- 
logor. [loc. xxv. par. 2.] cap. 7. § 5. 
membr. 1. [tom. xiv. p.24.ed. Tubinge, 
1776.| probat ex Deut. xvii. 18. 

x [ΠΙ|πὰ tantum dicam } hune maxi- 
mum pontificem, totius ecclesiasticae 
libertatis unicum assertorem [fuisse, 
qui quanquam vir sanctissimus esset, 
&c.J—Onuph. [ Annotat.] in Platin. in 
vit. Gregor. VII. [apud Platin. Vit. 
Pontific. p. 177.] For, taking occa- 
sion by the war which Henry the 
Fourth had with the Saxons and their 
neighbours, and the complaint of the 
Saxons made to the pope, (of which 
Platina in the life of Gregory the 
Seventh,) the pope, wise enough for 
his own advantages, sought not only 
to free himself from the emperor, but 
to make the emperor subject to him; 
and for this the history is plain enough. 


229 


Srorron 
XXVI. 


Deut. xvii. 
18. 


2 Chron. 
sxonne Ἢ 
2 Kings 
5.0 VA: 


230 


Conrmrencr resemblance. 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 





1[Third... 
(male; 
Editt.1673, 
and 1686. | 
2 (Fourth 
(male)... 
Hditt. 
1673, and 
1686] 


Extravagant Authority claimed by Popes over Emperors. 


But beside this prime reason, there are divers 
others, which may easily be drawn out of the same resem- 
blance. For, since Innocentius’ main aim was to publish 
the pope’s greatness over kings and emperors, why doth he 
not tell us that the pope is as the sun, and the emperor 
as the moon? because, as the moon borrows all her light 
from the sun, so the emperor borrows all his true light from 
the pope; or because, as the moon still increases in light so 
long as she follows the sun, but so soon as ever she steps 
before the sun she wanes presently and her light decreases,— 
so the emperor, so long as he is content to follow the pope, 
and do all that he would have him, his light and his power 
increase; but if he do but offer to step before, though that 
be his proper place, then his light, and honour, and power, 
and all decrease. And this Pope Gregory the Seventh made 
too good upon the Emperor Henry the Fourth;'! and Pope 
Adrian the Fourth, and Alexander the Third,’ and Lucius 
the Third, with some others, upon Frederick Barbarossa. 
And some other emperors were alike served, where they did 
not submit. And I hope no man will blame the pope’s 
holiness for this. For if the emperors kept the popes under 
for divers years together—whereas Bellarmine’ tells us it 
was against all right they should so do, the pope being never 
rightfully subject unto them—I hope the pope, having now 
got power enough, may keep the emperors under, and not 
suffer them any more to step before the sun, lest, like moons 
as they are, they lose all their light. Or because, as the 
moon is but vicaria solis, “the vicar or substitute of the 


y (Eodem igitur modo Christiani 
subditi imperatoribus ethnicis, obedi- 
entiam illis debebant secundum 
conscientiam :] summus [autem] 
pontifex [Christi] Regis regum vica- 
rius imperatoribus terrenis jure sub- 
ditus non erat, [ac per hoe obedien- 
tiam illis non debebat:] sed [tamen, | 
tum quia potestas ejus nota non erat 
[imperatoribus paganis,] tum quia 
viribus temporalibus destitutus erat, 
vellet nollet, [ut dixi,] subjectus esse 
cogebatur.—Bellarmin. in Apologia 
{pro responsione ad librum Jacobi 
regis, cujus titulus est, Triplici nodo 
triplex cuneus, ἕο. cap.| xv. Respons. 
ad mendacium x. [(p. 37.) Op., tom. 
vii. col. 818. B. ed. Colon. 1617.] And 


Bellarmine is at the same argument 
for deposing of kings too. Quod si 
Christiani [olim non deposuerunt Ne- 
ronem, et Diocletianum, et Julianum 
Apostatam, ac Valentem Arianum, et 
similes, id fuit] quia deerant vires 
temporales Christianis. — Bellarmin. 
de Rom. Pont. lib. v. cap. 7. [§ 13. 
Op., tom. i. col. 904. B.] Now this 
is a most loud? untruth, as appears 
in Tertullian, who lived about the 
year 200, under Severus. And the 
Christians then had strength enough 
against the emperor, had they had 
right enough with it. 


—_—_—— 


1 flewd.... Edit. 1686.] 


Difficulties in the Scheme for reducing all under one Empire. 


231 


sun,” as Philo’ tells us, so the emperor, at least in 811] Sxcrron 


spiritual causes, is but the pope’s substitute, and that for the τ᾿ 


night, that his holiness may sleep the quieter on the other 
side of the sphere. Or, lastly, if you will abuse the Scripture, 
as you too often do, and as Innocentius did in the Decretal 
very grossly, you may say it is because the woman, which 


ἌΧΟΣ 


all grant represented the Church, is “clothed with the sun,” Rey. xii. 1. 


that is, with the glorious rays of the pope, and had the 
moon, that is, the emperor,* under her feet. For this is as 
good, as literal, as proper interpretation of these words, 


as that of Innocentius is of the words, “God made two Gen. i. 16. 


great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the less 
to rule the night.” Thus, he or you may give your wits 
leave to play, if you will, for the pope’s Decretal is a mere 
fancy. But the true reason, indeed, why Innocentius made 
it, was that above mentioned. He was now in that great- 
ness, that he thought he might pass anything upon the 
Christian world, that pleased him; and was therefore re- 
solved to bring it into the body of the Canon, that after- 
times might have a law to legitimate and make good their 
predecessors’ usurpation over emperors and kings. And 
rather than fail of this, he would not spare the abusing of 
Scripture itself. Where, by the way, dares A. C. say this 
pope did not err in cathedra when he was so dazzled be- 
tween the sun and the moon, that he wanted light im the 
midst of it to expound Scripture? Well, I would have the 
Jesuits leave their practising, and remember: First, that one 
emperor will not always be able to establish and preserve 
one only uniform practice and exercise of religion. Secondly, 
that, supposing he both can and will so do, yet the Jesuits 
cannot be certain that that one uniform exercise of religion 
shall be the Roman Catholic. And thirdly, that as there is 
a body of earth, a world of confusion, to eclipse their moon, 
the emperor,—so in the same way, and by like interposition, 
the moon, when it is grown too near in conjunction, may 
eclipse their sun, the pope. And there is no great doubt but 

2 [σελήνην δ᾽ ὑπηρέτην καὶ διάδοχον Friderici Primi pede comprimebat, 
ἡλίου, κ΄ τ. A. — Philo Jud.] deMon- οὐ dixit, Scriptum est, Super aspidem 
arch. lib. [i. cap. 1. Op., p. 812. D. et basiliseum, &c. — Jo. Nauclerus, 


ed. Paris. 1640.] Chron. Generatione xl. circa an. 1170. 
Ὁ Sicenim Alexander Tertius collum — [vol. iii. p. 235. ] 


232 Jesuits’ design to transfer the Empire to the King of Spain. 


Conrerencs he will, considering what some great kings make of the 
Fenre, Pope’s power at this day, when it pleases them. 
a XII.—And since we are in this comparison between the 

sun and the moon, give me leave a little farther to examine, 
who A. ©, and his fellow Jesuits, with some others, would 
have to be this one emperor. I am not willing to meddle 
with any the secret designs of foreign states; but if they will 
express their designs in print, or publish them by great and 
full authority, I hope then it shall neither be unlawful nor 
unfit for me either to take notice or to make use of them. 
Why, then, you may be pleased to know, they would have 
another translation of the empire from Germany to Spain. 
They think, belike, this emperor’s line, though in the same 
house, is not Catholic enough. And if you ask me how I 
know this secret, I will not take it up upon any common 
report, though I well know what that says; but I will tell 
you how I know it. Somewhat about four hundred years 
after Innocentius made his comment upon the two great 
lights, the sun and the moon, the pope and the emperor, a 
Spanish friar’ follows the same resemblance between the 
monarchies of Rome and Spain, in a tract of his, entitled 
“The Agreement of the two Catholic Monarchies,” and 
printed in Spanish, in Madrid, anno 1612. In the frontis- 
piece or title-page of this book, there are set out two 
escutcheons: the one, bearing the cross keys of Rome; the 
other, the arms of Castile and Leon; both joined together 
with this motto: In vinculo pacis, “ In the bond of peace.” 
On the one side of this, there is'a portraiture resembling 
Rome, with the sun shining over it and darting his beams 
on S. Peter’s keys, with this imscription : Luminare majus,° 





» John de Puente, [Tomo primero 46] 
la conveniencia de las dos Monarquias 
Catolicas, la de la Iglesia Romana, y la 
del Imperio Espafol, y defensa de la 
precedencia de los Reyes Catolicos de 
Espana a todos los Reyes del Mundo 
[Autor el Maestro fr. Juan de la 
Puente, de la orden de Predicadores, 
Chronista de la Mag? Catolica, 
Calificador de la Inquisicion y Prior 
de Ste Tomas de Madrid. 1612. With 
reference to this work, Thorold (T. C.) 
Laud’s Labyrinth, p. 227, observes: 
“We deny not but such a book was 


both licensed and printed : but doubt- 
less, whoever peruses the contents of 
it impartially, will judge it was both 
licensed and printed rather for its 
witty conceit, and divertisement for 
the king and his courtiers, than for a 
solid foundation, whereon to build 
any serious and dogmatical assertion.” 
The work itself bears no evidence of 
other than a serious purpose, in its 
author. | 

© Luminare majus, ut preesit urbi 
et orbi. [orbis in the original, cor- 
rected by Laud.] 


Evidence from John de Puente’s Book. 233 


“the greater light,” that it may govern the city—that is, Sxcrron 

Rome—and the whole world; and on the other side there is ae 

another image designing Spain, with the moon shining over 

that, and spreading forth its rays upon the Spanish 

escutcheon, with this impress: Luminare minus,’ “the less 

light,” that it may be subject to the city,—of Rome, he 

means,—and so be lord to govern the whole world besides. 

And over all this, in the top of the title-page, there is printed 

in capital letters, Fecit Deus duo luminaria magna, “God 

made two great lights.” There follows after, in this author, 

a discovery at large® of this blazoning of these arms; but 

this is the substance of it, and abundantly enough to show 

what is aimed at—by whom—and for whom. And this book 

was not stolen out without the will and consent of the 

state, for it hath printed before it all manner of licence 

that a book can well have: for it hath the approbation of 

Father Pedro de Buyza, of the company of the Jesuits; 

of John de Arcediano, provincial of the Dominicans; of 

Diego Granero, the licenser appointed for the supreme 

Council of the Inquisition. And some of these revised this 

book, by order from the lords of that Council. And last 

of all, the king’s privilege? is to it, with high commendation 

of the work. But the Spaniards had need look to it, for all 

this, lest the French deceive them. For now lately Friar 

Campanella hath set out an eclogue upon the birth of the 

Dauphin, and that permissu superiorum, “by licence from his 

superiors,” in which he says expressly: ‘That all the’ '[the... 
c - 2 ἘΝ carent 

princes are now more afraid of France than ever, for that paitt.1673, 

there is provided for it regnum universale, ‘the universal 2nd 1686. | 

kingdom, or monarchy.’ ”’ 


4 Luminare minus, ut subdatur 
urbi, et dominetur orbi. 

ὁ [Declaracion del blason que esta 
en la cabega deste libro.—This occu- 
pies five pages. ] 

f Por orden de los Seniores del 
Consejo Supremo, [ὃ visto este pri- 
mero tomo, &c. | 

5. Por mandado del Rey nuestro 
Sefior. [In both cases the words seem 
to mean that the works were examined 
and the licence signed by order of 
the respective authorities, and to be 
merely the ordinary forms of licensing. | 

» Quum Gallia alat 20,000,000 homi- 


num, ex singulis centenis sumendo 
unum, colligit 200,000 strenuorum 
militum stipendiatorum, commode, 
perpetuoque. Propterea omnes terree 
principes metuunt nune magis a 
Gallia, quam unquam [aut] ab aliis ; 
paratur enim illi regnum universale. 
—Kecloga [Christianissimis Regi et 
reginee| in [portentosam] Delphini 
Lorbis Christiani summee spei | nativi- 
tatem. F. Thome Campanelle [ord. 
Preed, seeculorum excubitoris cantus. ] 
cum annot. Discip. Parisiis, 1639. 
ΓΡ. 4. annot. ».] Cum permissu superi- 
orum. 


234 


ConFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsHer. 








A.C. p.60. 


A.C. p. 60. 


The analogy of States and secular Legislature 


XIIT.—But it is time to return. For A.C. in this passage 
hath been very careful to tell us of a parliament, and 
of living magistrates and judges, besides the law-books. 
Thirdly, therefore, The Church of England, God be thanked, 
thrives happily under a gracious prince, and well under- 
stands that a parliament cannot be called at all times; and 
that there are visible judges besides the law-books, and one 
supreme (long may he be, and be happy!) to settle all tem- 
poral differences ; which, certainly, he might much better 
perform, if his kingdoms were well rid of A. C. and his 
fellows. And she believes too, that our Saviour Christ 
hath left in His Church, besides His law-book the Scripture, 
visible magistrates and judges—that is, archbishops and 
bishops, under a gracious king, to govern both for truth and 
peace according to the Scripture; and her own canons and 
constitutions, as also those of the Catholic Church, which 
cross not the Scripture and the just laws of the realm.’ 
But she doth not believe there is any necessity to have one 
pope or bishop over the whole Christian world, more than 
to have one emperor over the whole world—which, were it 
possible, she cannot think fit. Nor are any of these inter- 
mediate judges, or that one which you would have supreme, 
infallible. 

XIV.—But since a “kingdom” and a “parliament” please 
A. C. so well to pattern the Church by, I will follow him in 
the way he goes, and be bold to put him in mind, that in 
some kingdoms there are divers businesses of greatest con- 
sequence, which cannot be finally and bindingly ordered, 
but in and by parliament; and particularly the statute laws, 
which must bind all the subjects, cannot be made and 
ratified but there. Therefore, according to A. C.’s own 
argument, there will be some business also found, (Is not 
the settling of the divisions of Christendom one of them ?) 
which can never be well settled, but in a General Council ;* 


* [Ad primam illarum respondetur reges gubernantes plura regna. — 


. .. quod Christus est caput fidelium: 
ideo Christiani non subsunt uni capiti 
sub Christo. Ad rationem autem in 
contrarium respondetur, quod] non 
est necesse, ut sub Christo sit unus 
rector totius ecclesiz, sed sufficit quod 
sint plures diversas regentes pro- 
vincias, quemadmodum sunt plures 


Ockam. Dial. lib. 11. tract. i. par. 3. 
cap. 30. ad. 1. [apud Goldast. 8. Rom. 
Imper. Monarch. tom. ii. p. 818. ed. 
Francof. 1614. ] 

* [Ex quibus omnibus arguitur a 
simili, quod etiam] propter defectum 
conciliorum generalium totius Eecle- 
siz, quee sola audet intrepide corri- 


suggests that the Church should be regulated by Councils. 


and particularly the making of canons, which must bind all 
particular Christians and Churches, cannot be concluded and 
established but there. And again, as the supreme magis- 
trate in the state civil may not abrogate the laws made in 
parliament, though he may dispense with the sanction or 
penalty of the law, guoad hic et nunc, as the lawyers 
speak,—so in the ecclesiastical body, no bishop, no, not 
the pope, where his supremacy is admitted, hath power to 
disannul! or violate the true and fundamental decrees of a 
General Council, though he may perhaps dispense in some 
cases with some decrees. By all which it appears, though 
somewhat may be done by the bishops and governors of the 
Church, to preserve the unity and certainty of faith, and to 
keep the Church from renting, or for uniting it when it is 
rent; yet that, in the ordinary way which the Church hath 
hitherto kept, some things there are, and upon great 
emergent occasions may be, which can have no other help 
than a lawful, free, and well composed General Council. 
And when that cannot be had, the Church must pray that it 
may, and expect till it may; or else reform itself per partes, 
by national or provincial synods, as hath been said _be- 
fore.“ And in the mean time, it little beseems A. C., or any 
Christian, to check at the wisdom of Christ," if He have not 


gere omnes, ea mala que universalem 
tangunt Eecclesiam manentia diu in- 
correcta crescunt, [et inventa sunt de 
malo in pejus, donec tandem iniqua, 
sub fictione consuetudinis, reputentur 
licita. — Joann.| Gerson. declarat. 
Defectuum Virorum Ecclesiasticorum, 
[Op.,] tom. i. p. 209. [ed. Paris. 1606. 
tom. ii. col. 318. C. ed. Dupin. 1706.] 
1 Sunt enim indissolubilia decreta, 
quibus reverentia debita est.—S. Pros- 
per. [Aquitan. lib.] contra Collatorem, 
[i.e. pro def. S. Augustin. contra Cassia- 
num,|cap.i. [Op.,col. 310. B. His 
words are: Ecce salva Catholicz pace 
victoriz, salva indissolubilium reve- 
rentia decretorum, parati sumus patro- 
nos doctrinze emendatioris audire, &e. | 
And Turrecremata, who says every- 
thing that may be said for the pope’s 
supremacy, yet dares not say, papam 
posse revocare et tollere omnia statuta 
generalium conciliorum, sed aliqua 
tantum. — Joann. de Turrecremata, 
Summez de Heclesia, lib. ili. cap. 55. 
[ed. Lugd. 1496. His words are: In 


superioribus duobus capitulis osten- 
dimus quod Romanus pontifex pree- 
rogativa primatus sui poterat tam 
interpretari dubia que in canonibus 
conciliorum sacrorum orirentur quam 
dispensare in illis; nune restat osten- 
dere quod etiam possit tam canones 
universalium conciliorum quam de- 
creta suorum preedecessorum aliquo- 
rum pro temporum et causarum ne- 
cessitate revocare tollere atque 
mutare: licet non universaliter. |—Ht 
postea, Papa non potest revocare 
decreta primorum quatuor concilio- 
rum, quia non sunt nisi declarativa 
articulorum fidei. [His words are: 
Et sic dicimus quod hoc competat 
illis quatuor conciliis (se. primis,) 
quod revocari non possunt, propter 
hoc: sc. quia non fuerunt nisi decla- 
rativa articulorum fidei. ]—Ibid. cap. 
57. | Respons. | ad secundum. 

™ Sect.xxiv. No. 1.[ubi sup. p. 167.] 

o “ And shall we think that Christ, 
the wisest King, hath not provided,” 
&c.—A. C. p. 60. Where I cannot 


235 


SECTION 


XXVI. 


236 The Council of Trent not General: (1.) Because its abetiors maintained 


Corrrrencr taken the way they think fittest! to settle Church differences ; 
WITH 


FisHer. 





" (fitting... 
Editt.1673, 
and 1686.] 


1 Cor. xi. 


19, 





or if, for the Church’s sin or trial, the way of composing 
them be left more uncertain than they would have it, “that 
they which are approved may be known.” But the Jesuit 
had told me before, that a General Council had adjudged 
these things already. For so he says. 


¥. I told him, that a General Council, to wit, of Trent, 
had already judged, not the Roman Church, but the 


Protestants,’ to hold errors.’ “ That,” said the &. 


“ was not a lawful* Council.” 


* (The Chaplain saith, “That the %. said not only so, but that it was no 
General Council.” I answer, that if the %. said so, it was only for want of 
memory that the Jesuit did not relate it so; for the exceptions which the 38. 
did or can make against the lawfulness or generalness of the Council of Trent, 
may be made by Arians against the Council of Nice. It is not necessary to the 
lawfulness and generalness of a Council, that all bishops of the world be actually 
present, and actually subscribe or yield assent ; but that such promulgation be 
made as is morally sufficient to give notice that such a Council is called, and 
that all may come if they will, and that a competent number, at least the 
major part, of those which be present, yield assent to the decree.—A. C. marg. 
note to p. 60.] 


%. I.—It is true that you replied for the Council of Trent ; 
and my answer was, not only that the Council was not legal 
in the necessary conditions to be observed in a General 
Council, but also that it was no General Council—which 
again you are content to omit. Consider it well. First, Is 
that Council legal, the abettors whereof maintain publicly 
that it is lawful for them to conclude any controversy, and 
make it be de fide, and so in your judgment fundamental, 
though it have not—I do not say now, the written word of 


efficacibus rationibus, et exemplis, et 


commend either A. C.’s modesty, ibus 
auctoritatibus sacree Scripture decla- 


that he doth not—or his cunning, that 


he will not—go so far as some have 
done before him, though in these 
words, “shall we think,” &c. he goes 
too far. [Nam] non videretur discre- 
tus Dominus fuisse, ut, cum reverentia 
Bjus loquar, nisi unicum post se talem 
vicarium reliquisset, qui heee omnia 
potest. Fuit autem [iste] vicarius 
ejus Petrus. (Matt. xv.) Et idem 
dicendum est de successoribus Petri, 
cum eadem absurditas sequeretur, si 
post mortem Petri, humanam natu- 
ram a se creatam sine regimine unius 
persone reliquisset .. . [Et ideo Boni- 
facius Octavus motus multis aliis 


ravit, dixit, et definivit subesse Ro- 
mano pontifici omnem humanam 
creaturam de necessitate salutis, ut in 
Decretali, Unam Sanctam, &e.]— 
Extrav. Comm, [lib. i.] Tit. viii. de 
Majoritate et Obedientia, cap. Unam 
Sanctam, &c.in addition. D{om.] Petri 
Bernardi, ed. Paris. 1585. [in Petr. 
Bernard. Tract. de Jurisdict. Eccles. 
et Seecul. quest. iv. apud Tractat. 
Juris Utriusque, tom. xii. fol. 414. 
col. 1. ed. Venet. 1584. Extat quoque 
in Max. Bibl. Vet. Patrum, tom. xxvi. 
p. 134. G.] 


that it might conclude what was without warrant of Scripture. 


God for warrant, either in express letter or necessary sense 
and deduction, (as all unerring councils have had, and as 
all must have that will not err,) but,—not so much as pro- 
bable testimony from it, nay, quite extra, “ without” the Scrip- 
ture?° Nay, secondly, Is that Council legal? where the 


ο [Sed quae Ecclesia ab apostolorum 
usque temporibus prima et certa tra- 
ditione accepit, vel contra heereses in 
causa fidei maturo judicio definivit, 
vel pro loco et tempore in moribus 
definiendum censuit,| etiamsi nullo 
Scripturarum, [aut evidenti, aut] pro- 
babili testimonio confirmetur, [soli- 
dum tamen et indubitatum cuivis 
fideli et vero Ecclesize filio esse debet. | 
—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Con- 
trov. iv. de potestate Eeclesize in se, | 
Q[ueest.] 1. Ar|tic.] 3. [Op., tom. i. 
p. 744. A. ubi sup. p. 32. note ™. ] 

P Here A.C. tells us, “ that doubt- 
less the Arians also did mislike that, 
at Nice, the pope had legates to carry 
his messages, and that one of them 
in his place sat as president.” Why, 
but first, it is manifest that Hosius 
was president at the Council of Nice, 
and not the Bishop of Rome, either by 
himself or his legates. And so much 
Athanasius himself (who was present, 
and surely understood the Council of 
Nice, and who presided there, as well 
as A. C.) tells us: Hosius hic est 
prineeps synodorum. (So, belike, he 
presided in other councils as well as 
at Nice.) Hic formulam fidei in 
Niczena synodo concepit. (And this 
the Arians themselves confess to Con- 
stantius the emperor, then seduced to 
be theirs.)—Apud §. Athanas. Hpist. 
ad solitar. vitam agentes. [οὗτος καὶ 
συνόδων καθηγεῖται, Kal γράφων ἀκούεται 
πανταχοῦ" οὗτος καὶ τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν 
ἐξέθετο, καὶ τοὺς ᾿Αρειανοὺς ἐκήρυξεν 
αἱρετικοὺς εἶναι πανταχοῦ"---ἶὸ. Athanas. 
Historia Arianorum ad Monachos, 
cap. xlii. Op., tom i. p. 369. B.] But 
then, secondly, I do not except against 
the pope’s sitting as president, either 
αὖ Nice or Trent; for that he might 
do when called or chosen to it, as well 
as any other patriarch, if you con- 
sider no more but his sitting as pre- 
sident. But at Nice the cause was 
not his own, but Christ’s against the 
Arian; whereas, at Trent, it was 
merely his own—his own supremacy, 
and his Church’s corruptions, against 
the Protestants; and, therefore, 
surely not to sit president at the 
trial of his own cause, though in other 


causes he might sit, as well as other 
patriarchs. And for that of Bellarmine, 
de Conciliis [et Ecclesia,] lib. i. cap. 
21: ὃ 10: Opis com 11 00]. 51. (}] 
Tertia conditio [iniqua est: quia 
Romanus pontifex non potest privari 
jure suo indicendi concilia, et eis pree- 
sidendi, in cujus possessione jam fuit 
per 1500 annos, nisi prius in legitimo 
judicio convinecatur, non esse summus 
pontifex.] viz. “That it is unjust 
to deny the Roman prelate his right 
(jus suam) in calling General Coun- 
cils, and presiding in them; in pos- 
session of which right he hath been 
for 1500 years.” ‘That is but a bold 
assertion of the cardinal’s, by his 
leave ; for he gives us no proof of it, 
but his bare word. Whereas the very 
authentic copies of the Councils, pub- 
lished and printed by the Romanists 
themselves, affirm clearly they were 
called by emperors, not by the pope ; 
and that the pope did not preside in 
all of them. And I hope Bellarmine 
will not expect we should take his 
bare word against the Councils. And 
most certain it is, that, even as Hosius 
presided the Council [an. 325.] at 

ice, and no way that as the pope’s 
legate ; so also in the second [an. 381. ] 
General Council, which was the first 
of Constantinople, Nectarius, Bishop 
of Constantinople, presided.—Concil. 
Chalced. Act. vi. p. 186. apud Bi- 
nium. [Concil. tom. ii. col. 953. B.]— 
In the third, [an. 431.] which was 
the first at Ephesus, 8S. Cyril of 
Alexandria presided; and though 
Pope Celestine was joined with him, 
yet he sent none out of the West to 
that council till many things were 
therein finished ; as appears apud Act. 
Concil. tom. ii. eapp. 16, 17. [Concil. 
tom. 111, col. 609, et seqq.]—In the 
fourth, [an. 451.] at Chalcedon, the 
legates of the bishop of Rome had 
the prime place.—[Concil. tom. iv. 
col. 786. |—In the fifth, [Constantinop. 
IL. an. 553. ] Eutychius, bishop of Con- 
stantinople, was president.—([Concil. 
tom. v. col. 416, 1---Τ the sixth, [ Con- 
stantinop. III. an. 681.] and seventh, 
[Niceen. II. an. 787.] the legates of 
the pope were president; yet so as 


207 


SECTION 


ΧΧΥΙΙ. 


238 


ConrERENCE 
WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


1 (him in 
the five 
first ses- 
sions of 
that Coun- 
Olle cue 
Edit. 1673. 
—him at 
the five 
first ses- 
sions of 
that Coun- 
ell 
Edit. 
1686. | 


(2.) The Pope was judge in his own cause. (8.) The Eastern, 


pope, the chief person to be reformed, shall sit president in 
it, and be chief judge in his own cause, against all law, 
divine, natural, and human? In a place not free, but in, or 
too near, his own dominion? ‘To which all were not called 
that had deliberative or consultative voice? In which none 
had suffrage but such as were sworn to the pope and the 
Church of Rome, and professed enemies to all that called 
for reformation, or a free council? And the pope! himself, to 
show his charity, had declared and pronounced the appel- 
lants heretics, before they were condemned by the council ? 
I hope an assembly of enemies are no ‘lawful council; and 
I think the decrees of such a one are omni jure nulla, and 
carry their nullity with them through all law. 

II.—Again : Is that council general, that hath none of the 
Eastern Churches’ consent, nor presence there? Are all 
the Greeks so become non ecclesia, “no church,” that they have 
no interest in General Councils? It numbers, indeed, 
among the subscribers six Greeks. They might be so by 
nation, or by title, purposely given them; but dare you say 
they were actually bishops of, and sent from, the Greek 
Church to the Council? Or is it to be accounted a General 
Council, that in many sessions had scarce ten archbishops, 
or forty or fifty bishops, present? And for the West of 
Christendom, nearer home, it reckons one English, 8. Asaph. 
But Cardinal Pole was there too; and English indeed he 
was by birth, but not sent to that Council by the king and 
Church of England, but as one of the pope’s legates :ῦ and so 
we find him in the fifth session of that Council, but neither 
before nor after.' And at the beginning of the Council he 
was not bishop in the Church of England; and after he 
was Archbishop of Canterbury, he never went over to the 


that almost ali the duty of a mode- 
rator or president was performed in 
the seventh by Tharasius, bishop of 
Constantinople, as appears manifestly 
in the Acts of that Council.—[{Con- 
cil. tom. vi. col. 587. and Concil. tom. 
vii. col. 1. and col. 161. &c.]—And 
since these seven are all the General 
Councils which the Greeks and Latins 
jointly acknowledge, and that in 
these other patriarchs and bishops 
presided, as oft at least as the bishop 
of Rome, what is become of Bellar- 
mine’s brag, “that the pope hath 


been possessed of this right of pre- 
siding in General Councils for the 
space of 1500 years?” 

4 Leo X. Bull. Jun. 8, 1520. [Pro 
pastoralis igitur officii, divina gratia 
nobis injuncti, cura quam gerimus, 
preedictorum errorum virus pestiferum 
ulterius tolerare seu dissimulare ... . 
non possumus.—In Bull. Hxurge Do- 
mine, &e. dat. xvii. Kalend. Julii, an. 
1520. apud Bullarium, tom. i. p. 610. 
ed. Luxemburg. 1727. | 

τ Concil. Trid. Sess. 5. [carent, 
Editt. 1673, and 1686 ] 


and many Western, Churches were not legitimately represented. 


Council. 
authority ? 


And can you prove that 8. Asaph went thither by 

There were but few of other nations, and, it 
may be, some of them reckoned with no more truth than 
the Greeks. In all the sessions under Paul the Third, but 
two Frenchmen, and sometimes none—as in the sixth under 
Julius the Third, when Henry the Second of France pro- 
tested against that Council; and in the end it is well known 
how all the French, which were then a good part, held off 
till the Cardinal of Lorraine was got to Rome. As for the 
Spaniards, they laboured for many things upon good grounds, 
and were most unworthily overborne. 


239 


SrovTion 


XXVII. 


III.—To all this A. C. hath nothing to say, but “that it A.C. p. 61. 


is not necessary to the lawfulness and generalness of a 
Council that all bishops of the world should be actually 
present, subscribe, or consent ; but that such promulgation 
be made as is morally sufficient to give notice that such a 
Council is called, and that all may come, if they will; and 
that a major part at least of those that are present give 
assent to the decrees.” 
which A.C. speaks of “all pastors,” and those not only 
summoned, but “ gathered together.” And I will easily grant 
him, that it is not necessary that all bishops in the Christian 
world be present and subscribe; but, sure it is necessary to 
the “generalness” of a Council that some be there, and 
authorized for all particular Churches ;° and to the “freedom ” 
of a Council, that all that come may come safe; and to the 
“lawfulness” of a council, that all may come unengaged, 
and not fastened to a side, before they sit down to argue or 
deliberate. Nor is such a “ promulgation” as A. C. men- 
tions sufficient, but only in case of contumacy; and that 
where they which are called, and refuse to come, have no 
just cause for their not coming, as too many had in the case 
of Trent. And were such a “promulgation” sufficient for 


the “ generalness” of a council, yet for the “ freedom” and the 
“lawfulness” of it it were not. 


5 Quarta, ut saltem [ex majori parte 
Christianarum provinciarum  aliqui 
adveniant, et si quidem concilium fit 
in Oriente, semper visum est sufficere, 
si ex provinciis omnibus Orientis 
episcopi conveniant multi; ex toto 
autem Occidente] si mittantur aliqui 


{a summo pontifice, qui suppleant 
aliorum locum.] Et [e contrario si 
celebretur in Occidente| conveniant . . 
[multi, ex Oriente autem pauci] aliqui 
veniant, [nomine aliorum, | &c.—Bel- 
larmin. de Concil. [et Ecclesia, ] lib. i. 
cap. 17.§[5. Op., tom. ii. col. 35. A. ] 


1 will forget that it was but p. 59 im A.C. p. 59. 


240 What Confirmation is needed ?—On Spiritual authority of Decrees. 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsuer. 


[A.C. p.61.] 


F. “So,” said I, “would [the] Arians* say of the Council 
of Nice.” The 25. would not admit the case to be 


Ke τὸς 


* [As Protestants do think that the Council of Trent is not lawful, for having, 
in their judgment, departed from the letter and sense of Scripture, so did the 
Arians think of the Council of Nice. And as Protestants do justify that some 
were sent from the pope to Trent, and that the pope was president, so, doubt- 
less, did the Arians mislike that at Nice the pope had legates, who did carry 
his messages, and one of them in his place sat as president.—A. C. marg. note 
to p. 61.] 

%. So indeed you said; and not you alone. It is the 
common objection made against all that admit not every 
latter council as fully as that Council of Nice, famous 
through all the Christian world. In the mean time, nor you 
nor they consider that the case is not alike, as I then told 
you. If the case be alike in all, why do not you admit that 
which was held at Ariminum, and the second of Ephesus, as 
well as Nice? If you say, as yours do, it was because the 
pope approved them not, that is a true cause, but not 
adequate, or full. For it was because the whole Church 
refused them; with whom the Roman prelate, standing then 
entire in the faith, agreed, and so, for his patriarchate, 
refused those councils.t. But suppose it is true that these 
synods were not admitted because the pope refused them, 
yet this ground is gained, That the case is not alike for 
men’s assent to all councils. And if you look to have this 
granted, That the pope must confirm, or the council is not 
lawful, we have far more reason to look that this be not 
denied, That Scripture must not be departed from in 
letter or necessary sense, or the council is not lawful." 
For the consent and confirmation of Scripture is of far 
greater authority to make the council authentical, and the 
decisions of it de fide, than any confirmation of the pope 
can be. Now of these two, the Council of Nice, we are sure, 
had the first, the rule of Scripture; and you say it had the 


t Sect. xxvi. No.1.[ubisup. p.216.] against the Arian. So is it not here 


u Here A. C. tells us, that the 
Arians thought so of the Council of 
Nice, p. 61; namely, that they de- 
parted from letter and sense of Serip- 
ture. They said so, indeed. But the 
testimony of the whole Church, both 
then and since, went with the Council 


against the Protestant for Trent ; for 
they offer to be tried by that very 
Council of Nice, and all the ancient 
councils and fathers of the Church 
within the first four hundred years, 
and somewhat farther. 


no parallel between the Councils of Nice and Trent. 941 


SEctTIon 


second, the pope’s confirmation. The Council of Trent, 8 
XXVIII. 


we are able to prove, had not the first, and so we have no 
reason to respect the second. And to what end do your 
learned men maintain that a council may make a conclusion 
de fide, though it be simply extra,* “out of all bound” of 
Scripture, but out of a jealousy at least, that this of Trent, 
and some others, have in their determinations left both 
letter and sense of Scripture? Show this against the 
Council of Nice, and I will grant so much of the case to 
be like: But what will you say, if Constantine’ required 
“that things thus brought imto question should be an- 
swered and solved by testimony out of Scripture?” And 
the bishops of the Nicene Council never refused that rule. 
And what will you say, if they profess they depart not from 
it, “ but are ready by many testimonies of divine Scripture 
to demonstrate their faith?”’* Is the case then alike 
betwixt it and Trent? Surely no. But you say that I 
pretended something else, for my not admitting the case to 
be alike. 


f. .... pretending that the pope made bishops of (A.C. p.61.] 


purpose,* for his side. But this the %. proved not. 


* (The Chaplain saith, That the ὅδ. did not say, That the Pope made bishops 
of purpose, &c. I answer, that the Jesuit doth not say that the 18. expressly 
said so; but that by insinuation he did pretend so much, which in effect the 
Chaplain seemeth to grant, when he saith, p. 40, the 13. said, The Pope made 
himself a strong party in it. For although these words may be taken in 
another sense, yet they may also be taken in that sense which the Jesuit, by 
the circumstances of the %.’s speech, did then understand and express in his 
Relation: for that a great number of Italian Bishops, which the Chaplain saith 
the 88. alleged asa proof, may very well import that the 38. conceived the Pope 
to have made more Italian Bishops than of other countries, of purpose to have 


x So Stapleton often, [ubi sup. p. 32. 
note ™;| but the fathers quite other- 
wise. [Przemitto interim pignus futuri 
apud te sermonis mei.| Non (aliqua 
ad scandalum, neque] quee extra Evan- 
gelium sunt, defendam.—S8. Hilar. 
| Pictay.] ad Constantium, lib. ii. [eap. 
11. Op., col. 1230. E.] 

y Literarum divinitus inspiratarum 
testimoniis.—lib. ii. in Syn. Nic. tom, 
i. per Nicolinum. [ed. Venet. 1585. 
εὐαγγελικαὶ yap βίβλοι, καὶ ἀποστολικαὶ, 
καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν προφητῶν τὰ θεσπί- 
σματα σαφῶς ἡμᾶς ἅπερ χρὴ περὶ τοῦθείου 
φρονεῖν ἐκπαιδεύουσι᾽ τὴν πολεμοποιὸν 

VOL. Il.—LAUD. 


οὖν ἀπελάσαντες ἔριν, ex τῶν θεοπνεύσ- 
των λόγων λάβωμεν τῶν ζητουμένων 
τὴν λύσιν.---Οταῦ. Constant. in Gelasii 
Histor. Concil. Niceeni, apud Concil. 
tom. ii. col. 166. D.] 

z Tb. in Osii sententia, p. 517. Pa- 
rati ex Sancti Spiritus arbitrio per 
plurima divinarum Scripturarum tes- 
timonia demonstrare heec ita se hahbere. 
[ἑτοίμως ἐχόντων ἠμῶν, σῦν εὐδοκίᾳ τοῦ 
ἁγίου Πνεύματος, διὰ πλείστων ὕσων 
μαρτυριῶν τῶν ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν 
δεῖξαι, ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν.--ἰὰ Gelasii 
Histor. Concil. Niczeni, apud Concil. 
tom. ii. col. 174. D.] 


R 


242 


Conrerencr 2 Strong faction. 
WITH 
FIsHER. 





Papal Influences at the Council of Trent. 


But this proof was so weak, as the Jesuit might well say it 
was no proof, not worthy of answer, or of looking into the book for it; it being 
only a surmise of adversaries, who are apt to interpret every thing to the 
worst. Italian Bishops might be more, as being nearer—as in Greek Councils 
more Grecians were present—without any factious combination with the Pope, 
in any other sort than all the Catholic Bishops in the world, who are as much 
united with the Pope for matters of faith, defined in'the Council, as any Italian 
Bishop. Neither can the %. prove that any Catholic French, or Spanish, 
or of any other country, or the schismatical Greeks, did agree with Pro- 
testants in those points which were defined in the Council, especially after it 
was confirmed by the Pope. For they all, even Grecians, did, and do at this 
day, unanimously oppose Protestants, as appeareth by the censure of Hieremias, 
the Grecian Patriarch. So as, ifsuch a free Council as the 89. and others wished 
were gathered out of East and West, Protestants doubtless would be con- 
demned for heretics, and their negative refutes and denials of ancient articles 
for heresies, by more than double the major part, compared to those who would 
take their part. For although, as all heretics use to do, Protestants per- 
suade themselves Scriptures to be evident for their opinions, and that with 
evident demonstrations they should be able to convince all the world that they 
teach truth, and nothing but truth, yet they would find innumerable others as 
learned, to say no more, and as well studied in Scripture, and skilful in 
making demonstrations, who are of another mind.—A. C. marg. note to 


p. 61.] 

%. I.—No: nor had I reason to take on me to prove what 
I said not. I know it will be expected I should prove what 
I say. And it is hard to prove the purpose of the pope’s 
heart. For if it be proved that he made bishops at that time ; 
that some of them were titular only, and had no livelihood 
to subsist, but out of his purse, and so must hang their 
judgment at the strings of it; that some of these thus 
made were sent to the Council—and sure not without their 
errand ;—yet if the pope will say he neither made nor sent 
them to overrule the Holy Ghost at that meeting, or of pur- 
pose for his side, (as no question but it will be said,) who 
can prove it, that is not a surveyor of the heart? But 
though the pope’s heart cannot be seen, yet if these and the 
like presumptions be true, it is a great sign that Trent was 
too corrupt and factious a meeting for the Holy Ghost to be 
at. And sure the case in this not alike at Nice. 

II1.—That which I said was, “that Trent could be no 
indifferent Council to the Church, the pope having made 
himself a strong party in it.” And this I proved, though 
you be here not only content to omit, but plainly to deny the 
proof. For I proved it thus, (and you answered not,)* 


* Here A. C. is angry, and says, pret tothe worst.” Secondly, because 


“ This was no proof, nor worthy of any 
answer, or looking into the book for 
it.” First, because itis only “a surmise 
of adversaries, who are apt to inter- 


“ there might be more Italian bishops 
there, as being nearer, yet without any 
factious combination with the pope ; 
as in the Greek Councils more Gre- 


Preponderance of Itahan Bishops. 


«That there were more Italian bishops there than of all 
Christendom besides.” More? Yea, more than double. 
And this I proved out of the Council itself, which you had 
in your hand, in decimo sexto, but had no great heart to look 
it. For, where the number of prelates is expressed, that had 
suffrage and vote in that Council, the Italians are set down 
to be one hundred and eighty-seven, and all the rest make 
but eighty-three; so that there were more Italian bishops, 
by one hundred and four, than of all the rest of Christendom. 
Sure the pope did not mean to be overreached in this 
Council. And whatsoever became of his infallibility other- 
wise, he might this way be sure to be infallible in whatsoever 
he would have determined; and this, without all doubt, is 
all the infallibility he hath. So I proved this sufficiently, 
I think. For if it were not to be sure of a side, give any 
satisfying reason why such a potent party of Italians, more 
than double to the whole Christian world, should be there? 
Show me the like for Nice, and I will give it that the case is 
alike between these two Councils. 

III.—Here Bellarmine comes in to help. But sure it will 
not help you, that he hath offered at as much against the 
Council of Nice, as I have urged against that at Trent. For 
he tells us, “ that in the Council at Nice there were as few 
bishops of the West present as were of the East at Trent,”? 


cians were present.” —A.C. p.62. “No 
proof,” or a‘ weak” one! Let thereader 
judge that. But why “no proof?” Be- 
cause “a surmise of adversaries.” Is 
that a surmise of adversaries that is 
taken out of the Council itself? Is 
that Council then become regnum di- 
visum, and apt to interpret the worst 
of itself? Yea, “ but there were more 
Italian bishops, as being nearer.” Most 
true: nearer a great deal than the 
“ Grecian” bishops; but the bishops of 
France and of some parts of Germany 
were almost as near as the Italians 
themselves ; and why, then, came no 
more of these, that were near enough? 
Well; A. C. may say what he will, 
but the pope remembered well the 
Councils of Constance and Basil, and 
thought it wisdom to make sure work 
at Trent. For in later times (for their 
own fears, no doubt), the bishops of 
Rome have been no great friends to 


General Councils, especially free ones. 
Multi suspicantur, quod hee dissimu- 
laverit Romana curia, et [super his] 
concilia fieri neglexerit, ut possit ad 
sue voluntatis libitum plenius domi- 
nari, et jura aliarum ecclesiarum libe- 
rius usurpare. Quod non assero esse 
verum ; sed quia [contra eam] hujus- 
modi laborat infamia, ideo, &c.—Pet. 
de Alliaco, Card. Cameracensis lib. 
[tractat.] de Reformat. Eccles. [oblat. 
in Concil. Constant.| apud Fascic. 
rerum expetendarum [ac fugienda- 
tum,] fol. eciv. B. [et, apud Joann. 
Gerson. Op., tom. ii. col. 903, &c. ed. 
Dupin. ] 

» [Sic] in Concilio Nicene I. ex 
oceidente solum fuerunt duo pres- 
byteri missi ex Italia, unus episcopus 
ex Gallia, unus ex Hispania, et unus ex 
Africa.—Bellarmin. 110. i. de Concil. 
cap. 17. ὃ antepenult. [Op., tom. ii. 
col. 35. A.] 


R 2 


248 


Srcrion 


XXIX. 


244 Decrees of Trent neither confirmed nor acknowledged by Eastern Ch. 


Coxrerence but five in all. Be it so: yet this will not make the case 


WITH 


FIsuer. 


[Bibs a 
caret Edit. 
1686. ] 


A.C. p. 62. 


alike between the two Councils. First, because I press not 
the disparity in number only, but with it the pope’s car- 
riage, to be sure of a major part; for it lay upon the pope to 
make sure work at Trent, both for himself and his Church. 
But neither the Greek Church in general, nor any patriarch 
of the East, had any private interest to look to in the Council 
at Nice. Secondly, because I press not so much against the 
Council of Trent, that there were so exceeding many 
bishops cf the West compared with those of the East—for 
that must needs be, when a Council is held in the West—but, 
that there were so many more Italians, and bishops ob- 
noxious to the pope’s power, than of all Germany, France, 
Spain, and all other parts of the West besides. Thirdly, 
because both Bellarmine and A. C. seek to avoid the dint of 
this argument, by comparing the Western with the Eastern 
bishops, and are content to say nothing about the excessive 
number of Italians to others of the West. That will receive 
a fuller answer than any of the rest. For though very few 
Western bishops were at the Council of Nice, being so 
remote, yet at' the same time Pope Sylvester held a Council 
at Rome, in which he, with two hundred and seventy-five 
bishops of the West, “ confirmed the Nicene Creed, and 
anathematized all those which should dare to dissolve the 
definition of that holy and great Council.”° Now, let Bel- 
larmine, or A. C., or any else, show, that when the Council 
of Trent sat, there was another Council—though never so 
privately, in regard of their miserable oppression—which sat 
in Greece, or anywhere in the East, under any patriarch or 
Christian bishop, which did confirm the canons of the 
Council of Trent, and anathematize them which admitted 
them not; and I will confess they speak home to the com- 
parison between the Councils, else a blind man may see the 
difference, and it is a vast one. 

IV.—But here A. C. makes account he hath found a 
better reply to this; and now tells us, that “neither French, 


© Omnes qui ausi fuerint dissolvere principis Constantini Augusti,] ana- 
definitionem sancti et magni concilii, | thematizamus.—Concil. Roman. III. 
quod apud Nicweam congregatum est, sub Sylvestro, apud Binium, p. 449. 
{sub preesentia piissimi et venerandi [(Concil. tom. ii. col. 410. E.] 


No settlement can be final till a free General Council. 


nor Spanish, nor schismatical Greeks, did agree with Pro- 
testants in those points which were defined in that council, 
especially after it was confirmed by the pope, as appears by 
the censure of Jeremias, the Greek patriarch.” Who agreed 
with the Protestants in the points defined by that Council, 
as he speaks—or rather, to speak properly, against the 
points there defined—I know not. And for aught A.C. 
knows, many might agree with them in heart, that in such a 
Council durst not open themselves. And what knows A. C. 
how many might have been of their opinion in the main, 
before the Council ended, had they been admitted to a fair 
and a free dispute? And it may be too, some decrees would 
have been more favourable to them, had not the care of the 
pope’s interest made them sourer. For else what mean 
these words, “ especially after it was confirmed by the pope ?” 
As for Jeremias, it is true, his censure is in many things 
against the Protestants ; but I find not that that censure of 
his is warranted by any authority of the Greek Church, or 
that he gave the Protestants any hearing before he passed 
his censure. And, at the most, it is but the censure of a 
schismatic, in A.C.’s own judgment. And for his flourish 
which follows, “that East and West would condemn Pro- 
testants for heretics,” I would he would forbear prophesying, 
till both parts might meet in a free General Council that 
sought Christ more than themselves. But I find the Jesuit 
hath not done with me yet, but adds: 


¥. In fine, the 25. wished, that a lawful* General 
Council were called, to end controversies. The per- 
sons present said, that' the king was inclined 
thereunto, and that’ therefore we Catholics might 


do well to concur. - 


* [I marvel in what sort the 33. will describe such a General Council ; and 
how it should be gathered ; and what rules are in it to be observed, which are 
morally likely so to be observed, as to make an end of controversies, better 
than our Catholic General Councils.—A. C. marg. note to p. 62.] 


%. And what say you to my wish? You pretend great 
love to the truth: would you not have it found? Can you 


or any Christian be offended, that there should be a good 
end of controversies? Can you think of a better end than 


245 


Srerron 
XXX. 





[A. C. pp. 
62, 63.] 


ὙΠ ΘΝ ὁ δ 
caret Α.Οἡ 
2 (ithatices 
caret A.C.] 


§ 30. 


246 Such Council need only observe conditions required in Primitive Ch. 


Corrmernor by a General Council? And if you have a most gracious 


WItH 
FisHer. 


A.C. Ρ. 62. 


[A.C.p.63.] 


δ 31. 


[A.C.p.63.] 


king inclined unto it, as you say it was offered, how can you 
acquit yourselves if you do not consent? Now here A. C. 
‘marvels what kind of General Council I would have, and 
what rules I would have observed in it, which are morally 
like to be observed, and make an end of controversies, better 
than their Catholic General Councils.” Truly, I am not 
willing to leave A. C. unsatisfied in any thing; nor have I 
any meaning to trouble the Church with any new devisings 
of mine. Any General Council shall satisfy me—and, I 
presume, all good Christians—that is lawfully called, con- 
tiued, and ended, according to the same course, and under 
the same conditions,’ which General Councils observed in 
the primitive Church; which, I am sure, were Councils 
General and Catholic, whatever yours be. But I doubt, that 
after all noise made about these requisite conditions, A. C. 
and his fellows will be found as much, if not more defective 
in performance of the conditions, than in the conditions 
themselves.—Well, the Jesuit goes on, for all this: 


ἢ. I asked the %. whether he thought a General 
Council might err? He said, It might. 


2%. I presume, you do not expect I should enter into the 
proof of this controversy, Whether a General Council may 
err in determination, or not? Yourself brought no proof 
that it cannot ; and till that be brought, my speech is good 
that it can; and yet I hope to be found no infringer of any 
power given by Christ to His Church. But it seems by that 
which follows, you did by this question, “Can a General 
Council err?” but seek to win ground for your other, which 
follows : 


¥. “If a General Council may err, what nearer are we 
then,” said I, “to unity, after a Council hath deter- 
mined?” “Yes,” said he, “although it may err, 

* Ex iis conciliis que omnium  conditiones [et] sufficere et requiri, [ad 
consensu generalia fuerunt, qualia generale Concilium.]|—Bellarmin. de 


sunt quatuor prima: ex consuetudine Concil. lib. i. cap. xvii. § 2. [Op., 
autem Eeclesize colligimus quatuor tom. ii. col. 34. Cx 


Distinctions as to possibility of a General Council falling into Error. 247 


yet we should be bound* to hold with’ it till another  Sxcrtoy 
ue) XXXII. 
come to reverse it. -εο... 
ie 
* {The Chaplain saith, that the %. added a caution, which the Jesuit ae 
omitteth, saying: The determination of a General Council erring was to stand ; 
in force, and have external obedience at least yielded to it, till evidence of 
Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, made the error appear, and until 
thereupon another Council of equal authority did reverse it. I answer, That 
added caution, which either was not there added, or not remembered by the 
Jesuit, maketh the %.'s answer far worse than as the Jesuit did relate. For 
whereas the Jesuit relateth only thus, “although it may err,” this caution 
maketh the case to be, “ that it doth actually err.” And whereas the Jesuit 
relateth, ‘‘ that we,” not knowing whether it do err or not, but only that it may 
err, “are bound to hold it until another come to reverse it ;” this caution doth 
put the case so, as if the determination of a General Council actually erring, 
were, not ipso jure invalid, but, such as is to stand in force, and to have ex- 
ternal obedience at least yielded unto it, till not only moral certainty, but, 
evidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, make the error 
appear ; and after the error appeareth, yet we must continue this yielding of 
obedience. And how long? “Until thereupon a council,” and not every council, 
but “of equal authority, do reverse it,’ which perhaps will not be found in a 
whole age. Verily I cannot believe, that the %. upon better advisement will 
allow this caution, or give any thanks to his Chaplain for setting it down ; but 
will commend the Jesuit for relating his speech more truly, and at least less 
disgracefully—A. C. marg. note to p. 63.] 


45. I.—Whether a General Council may err or not, is ἃ § 32. 
question of great consequence in the Church of Christ. To 
say it cannot err, leaves the Church not only without 
remedy against an error once determined, but also without 
sense that it may need a remedy, and so without care to 
seek it; which is the misery of the Church of Rome at this 
day. To say it can err, seems to expose the members of 
the Church to an uncertainty and wavering in the faith; 
to make unquiet spirits ; not only to disrespect former councils 
of the Church, but also to slight and contemn whatsoever it 
may now determine ; into which error some opposers of the 
Church of Rome have fallen. And upon this is grounded 
your question, ‘“‘ Wherein are we nearer to unity, if a council 
may err?” But in relating my answer to this, you are not 
so candid; for my words did not sound as yours seem to do, 
“That we should hold with the council, err or not err, till 
another came to reverse it ;” as if grounds of faith might 
vary at the racket, and be cast of each side as a cunning 
hand might lay them. 

II.—You forget again—omit, at least—and with what 
mind you best know, the caution which I added. For I 
said, “The determination of a General Council erring was to 
stand in force, and to have external obedience at the least 


248 A Gen.Counc. may err, on R.C. grounds, unless confirmed by the Pope. 


Conrerence yielded to it, till evidence of Scripture,® or a demonstration 


WITH 
FisHer. 


to the contrary, made the error appear ; and until thereupon 
another Council! of equal authority did reverse it.” And, 
indeed, I might have returned upon you again: Ifa General 
Council not confirmed by the pope may err, (which you 
affirm,) to what end then a General Council? And you may 
answer, Yes; for although a General Council may err, yet 
the pope, as head of the Church, cannot. An excellent 
means of unity, to have all in the Church as the pope will 
have it, whatever Scripture say, or the Church think! And 
then, I pray, to what end a General Council? Will his 
holiness be so holy, as to confirm a General Council if it 


determine against him ? 


εἰ Sect. xxxili. Consid. 5. No. 1, 2. 
[vide infra, pp. 272, 273.] And the 
reason of this is, because to have a Ge- 
neral Council deceived, is not impos- 
sible : but altogether impossible it is, 
that demonstrative reason or testimony 
divine should deceive.—Hooker. Eccl. 
Polit. Book ii. ch. vii. [Sect. 5. Works, 
vol. i. p.407. His words are: “I grant 
that proof derived from the authority 
of man’s judgment is not able to work 
that assurance which doth grow by a 
stronger proof; and therefore although 
ten thousand General Councils would 
set down one and the same definitive 
sentence concerning any point of 
religion whatsoever, yet one demon- 
strative reason alleged, or one mani- 
fest testimony cited from the mouth 
of God Himself to the contrary, could 
not choose but overweigh them all ; 
inasmuch as for them to have been de- 
ceived, it is not impossible ; itis, that 
demonstrative reason or testimony 
divine should deceive.”] 

f In which case, Maldonat{us ] puts 
in the shrewdest argument; namely, 
That this way we should never have a 
certain end of controversies ; for, to 
try whether any thing were decreed 
according to the word of God by one 
General Council, we should need 
another Council; and then another to 
try that; and so in infinitum. So 
our faith should never have where to 
settle and rest itself—Maldonat. in 
S. Matth. xviii. 20. [His words are: 
Quod autem heeretici judicandum esse 
dicunt utrum in nomine Christi con- 
venerint, si nihil nisi ex verbo Dei 
constituerint, perverso faciunt judicio. 





And as for Bellarmine’s £ reasons 


Non enim, quia nihil nisi ex verbo 
Dei decernunt, in nomine Christi 
conyenerunt: sed quia in nomine 
Christi convenerunt, nihil nisi ex 
verbo Dei possunt decernere. Prius 
enim in nomine Christi conveniunt, 
quam aliquid decernant. Et qui in 
Christi nomine non convenerunt, 
possunt aliquando ex verbo Dei omnia 
decernere. Itaque incertam nobis 
heresim, et fallacem regulam tradunt, 
quee si vera esset, nunquam sciri 
posset, an aliquod concilium in no- 
mine Christi convenisset. Nam ad 
examinandum, utrum aliquid non ex 
verbo Dei decrevisset, alio concilio 
opus esset; et ad examinandum, an 
illud alterum aliquid dixisset preter 
verbum Dei, rursus opus altero: sic 
nusquam fides nostra gradum figeret. | 
But to this I answer, That the ancient 
Church took this way, as will after- 
ward appear in 8. Augustine. Next, 
here is no uncertainty at all; for no 
General Council lawfully called, and 
so proceeding, can be questioned in 
another, unless it so fall out, that 
evident Scripture or a demonstration 
appear againstit. But either of these 
are so clear and manifest, that there 
need be no fear of proceeding in in- 
Jjinitum, and leaving the faith in 
uncertainty, in necessaries to salva- 
tion. And in curious speculations it 
is no matter, whether there be cer- 
tainty or no, with or without a coun- 
cil.—[ Vide infra, Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 
5. No. 1, 2. [pp. 272, 273.] 

5 (Secnndaratio. Sisolus pontifex 
potest infallibiliter definire dogmata 
fidei, ergo frustra fiunt concilia, vel 


Supposed case of a General Council erring. 249 


why a General Council should be useful, if not necessary, Sroron 
though the pope be infallible, they are so weak in part, 5... 
and in part so unworthy, that I am sorry any necessity of 

a bad cause should force so learned a man to make use of 

them. 

IlI.—-Here A, C. tells me: “The caution mentioned as A.C. pp. 
omitted, makes my answer worse than the Jesuit related it ; Cee 
and that in two things. First, in that the Jesuit relates it 
thus : ‘although it may err ;’ but the caution makes it as if it 
did actually err. Secondly, in that the Jesuit relates ‘that we 
are bound to hold it till another come to reverse it ;’ that is, 
we not knowing whether it do err or not, but only that it may 
err. But the caution puts the case so, as if the determina- 
tion of a General Council actually erring were not ipso jure 
invalid, but must stand in force, and have external obedience 
yielded to it, till not only moral certaity, but evidence of 
Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary, make the 
error appear ; and when it appears, we must yield our obe- 
dience till a council of equal authority reverse it, which per- 
haps will not be found in an whole age. So either the Jesuit 
relates this speech [more] truly, or less disgracefully.” And 
A.C. thinks that, upon better judgment, I will not allow 
this caution. Truly, I shall not thank the Jesuit for any 
his kindness here. And for the “ caution,’ I must and do 
acknowledge it mine, even upon “advisement,” and that 
whether it make my answer worse or better. And I think 
farther, that the Jesuit hath no great cause to thank A. C. 
for this Defence of his Relation. 

IV.—First, then, the Jesuit, so says A.C., doth in his Rela- A. C. p. 63. 
tion make it but a supposition, that a General Council may err; 
but the “ caution’”’ expresses it as actually errmg. True; but 
yet I hope this expression makes no General Council actually 
err. And then it comes all to one, whether I suppose that 
such a Council may err, or that it do err ; and it is fitter for 
clearing the difficulties into which the Church falls in such 
a case, to suppose—and more than a supposition it is not—a 
General Council actually" erring, than as only under a possi- 
certe non sunt necessaria. Respondeo; ordinaria, &c.|—Bellarmin. de Rom. 

id non sequi. Nam etsi in pontifice Pont. lib. iv. cap. 7. $3. et seqq. [Op., 


sit infallibilitas, tamen non debet tom. i. col. 816. B, C.] J 
ipse contemnere media humana et h [Heee est ecclesia symbolica, ec- 


250 


CoNFERENCE bility of erring. 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


A.C. p. 63. 


Under what conditions Decisions of a General Council 


For the Church hath much more to do to 
vindicate itself from such an error actually being, than from 
any the like error that might be. 

V.—Secondly, A.C. thinks he hath got great advantage 
by the words of the “ caution ;” in that I say, “a General 
Council erring is to stand in force, and have external obe- 
dience,”’ at least so far as it consists in silence, patience, and 
forbearance yielded to it, “ till evidence of Scripture, or a 
demonstration to the contrary, make the error appear, and 
until thereupon another Council of equal authority did re- 
verse it.” Well! I say it agam. But is there any one 
word of mine in the caution, that speaks of our “ knowing” of 
this error? Surely not one; that is A. C.’s addition. Now, 
suppose a General Council actually erring in some point of 
Divine truth, I hope it will not follow that this error must 
be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be known to 
private men; and, doubtless, till they know it, obedience 
must be yielded; nay, when they know it, if the error be 
not manifestly against fundamental verity, (in which case a 
General Council cannot easily err,) I would have A. C. and 
all wise men consider, whether “external obedience” be 
not even then to be yielded; for if controversies arise in 
the Church, some end they must have, or they will tear all 
in sunder; and I am sure no wisdom can think that fit. 
Why, then, say a General Council err, and an erring decree 
be ipso jure, by the very law itself, invalid; I would have it 
wisely considered again, whether it be not fit to allow a 
General Council that honour and privilege which all other 
great courts have—namely, that there be a declaration of the 
invalidity of its decrees, as well as of the laws of other 
courts, before private men can take liberty to refuse obe- 
dience. For, till such a declaration, if the council stand not in 
force, A.C. sets up private spirits to control General Coun- 


clesia Christi inquam catholica et non quidem] in generali synodo [con- 


apostolica mater credentium popu- 
lorum, gue fidem habet indefectibi- 
lem, secuudum promissum Christi ad 
Petrum qui tune figuram gessit Eccle- 
siz, Ego rogavi, &c. Non est ergo spe- 
cialis ecclesia, non Africana, ut Do- 
natus dixit. Nec utique particularis 
illa Romana, sed universalis ecclesia, 


gregata], quam aliquoties errasse per- 
cepimus, [velut illa Ariminiensis... 
sed est ecclesia Christi catholica per 
totum mundum dispersa.|—{Thom.] 
Waldensis, Doctrinal. Fidei, tom. i. 
lib. ii. artic. ii. cap. xix. § 1. [fol. xcix. 
col. 1, 2.] 


are to be observed, until set aside by subsequent authority. 


cils; which is the thing he so often and so much cries out 
against in the Protestants. Therefore it may seem very fit and 
necessary for the peace of Christendom that a General 
Council thus erring should stand in force till ‘“ evidence of 
Scripture,’ or a “demonstration,” make the error to ap- 
pear, as “that another council of equal authority reverse it.””’ 
For as for “moral certainty,” that is not strong enough in 
points of faith, which alone are spoken of here. And if 
another council “ of equal authority’ cannot be gotten to- 
gether in an age, that is such an inconvenience as the 
Church must bear when it happens. And far better is that 
inconvenience than this other, That any authority less than 
a General Council should rescind the decrees of it, unless it 
err “ manifestly and intolerably ;”* or that the whole Church, 
upon peaceable and just complaint of this error, neglect or 
refuse to call a council and examine it; and there come in 
national or provincial councils to reform for themselves.' 
But no way must lie open to private men to refuse obe- 
dience™ till the council be heard and weighed, as well as that 
which they say against it; yet with Bellarmine’s exception 
still, “so the error be not manifestly intolerable.” " Nor is it 
fit for private men, in such great cases as this, upon which 
the whole peace of Christendom depends, to argue thus: 
The error appears, Therefore the determination of the council 
is ipso jure invalid ; but this is far the safer way—I say still, 
when the error is neither fundamental nor in itself manifest— 
to argue thus: The determination is by equal authority, and 
that secundum jus, “ according to law,” declared to be invalid, 
Therefore the error appears. And it is a more humble and 


i Tt is not long since A. C. com- 
pared Councils to Parliaments ; it was 
but p. 60. And I hope a parliament, 
and the acts of it, must stand in force, 
though something be mistaken in 
them, or found hurtful, till another 
parliament of equal authority reverse 
itand them. For I presume you will 
not have any inferior authority to 
abrogate Acts of Parliament. 

k Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 4. No. 1. [vide 
infra, p. 266. ] 

'Sect. xxiv. No. 1. [ubi sup. p. 
167. 


m Sect. xxxviii, No. 15. 


n (Alii dicunt concilium illud (se. 
Judeeorum contra Christum) errasse, 
quia non processit secundum morem 
legitimi judicii : sed tumultuaria con- 
spiratione, &c. . . Quia tamen] non est 
inferiorum judicare, an superiores legi- 
time procedant, necne, nisi manifestis- 
sime constet intolerabilem errorem 
committi. — Bellarmin. de Concil. 
[auctoritate,| lib. ii. cap. vill. ὃ 8. 
[Op., tom. ii. col. 64. B.]—Nisi mani- 
feste constet, &e.—Jac. Almain in III. 
Sentent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uzest.] 
unica, in fine. [ubi sup. p. 165. note ‘.] 


251 


SEcTION 


XXXII. 


252 


On General Councils—Source and extent of their authority. 


Conrrrence conscientious way for any private man to suffer a council to 


WITH 
FISHER. 


§ 33. 


Consid. 1. 


go before him, than for him to outrun the council; but 
weak and ignorant men’s outrunning both God and His 
Church, is as bold a fault now on all sides, as the daring of 
the times hath made it common. As for that which I have 
added concerning the possibility of a General Council’s 
erring, I shall go on with it, without asking any farther 
leave of A. C. 

For, upon this occasion, I shall not hold it amiss a little 
more at large to consider the pomt of General Councils, 
How they may, or may not err; and a little to look into the 
Roman and Protestant opimion concerning them; Which is 
more agreeable to the power and rule which Christ hath 
left in His Church ; and, Which is most preservative of peace 
established, or ablest to reduce perfect unity into the Church 
of Christ, when that poor ship hath her ribs dashed in 
sunder by the waves of contention. And this I will adven- 
ture to the world, but only in the nature of a consideration, 
and with submission to my mother, the Church of England, 
and the mother of us all, the Universal Catholic Church of 
Christ: as I do most humbly all whatsoever else is herein 
contained. 

First, then, I consider, Whether all the power that an 
(Ecumenical Council hath to determine, and all the assist- 
ance it hath not to err in that determination, it hath it not 
all from the catholic universal body of the Church,° and 
clergy in the Church, whose representative? it is? And 


it seems it hath. For the government of the Church being 


Ὁ {the head not monarchical,? but as Christ is’ head, this principle is 


1688.] dit. inviolable in nature : Every body collective that represents, 


© [Quod] si ecclesiz universitati 
non est data ulla auctoritas, ergo neque 
concilio generali, quatenus ecclesiam 
universalem repreesentat.— Bellarmin. 
de Concil. {auctoritat.| lib. ii. cap. 16. 
§ 4. [Op. tom. ii. col. 94. C.] 

P Dubit. sexs. Secunda propositio, | 
Concilium generale, [eam (scil. eccle- 
siam Romanam)| representans, [legi- 
time congregatum, non potest errare 
in fide. |—Jac. Almain. in III. Sentent. 
D{istinet.] xxiv. Q[ueest.] unica. [0]. 
Ixxii.] — [Secunda restrictio est, ut 


illud, Eeclesia non potest errare, in- 
telligatur de sola ecclesia universali, 
non autem extendatur ad] episcopos, 
qui sunt Ecclesia repreesentative, ut 
nostri loquuntur: [quilibet enim epi- 
scopus gerit personam suz ecclesize 
particularis, et proinde omnes episcopi 
gerunt personam totius ecclesize.— 
Bellarmin. de Ecclesia Militante, lib. 
111, cap. 14. ὃ 8. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
148. C, D.] 

4 Sect. xxvi. No. 8. [ubi sup. p. 
221.] 


No representative body coterminous with those whom it represents. 9208 


receives power and privileges from the body which is repre-  grerton 
sented; else a representation might have force without the ΧΧΧΗΙ. 
thing it represents, which cannot be. So there is no power 
in the council, no assistance to it, but what is in and to the 
Church. But then it may be questioned, Whether the re- 
presenting body hath all the power, strength, and privilege 
which the represented hath ?™ And suppose it hath all the 
legal power, yet it hath not all the natural, either of strength 
or wisdom, that the whole hath. Now, because the repre- 
sentative hath power from the whole—and the main body 
can meet no other way—therefore the acts, laws, and 
decrees of the representative, be it ecclesiastical or civil, are 
binding in their strength; but they are not so certain, and 
free from error, as is that wisdom which resides in the 
whole: for in assemblies merely civil, or ecclesiastical, all 
the able and sufficient men cannot be in the body that 
represents. And it is as possible so many able and sufficient 
men,® for some particular business, may be left out, as that 
they which are in may miss or misapply that reason and 
ground upon which the determination is principally to rest. 
Here, for want of a clear view of this ground, the repre- 
sentative body errs; whereas the represented, by virtue of 
those members which saw and knew the ground, may hold 
the principle inviolated. 

Secondly, I consider, That since it is thus in nature and Consid. I. 
in civil bodies, if it be not so in ecclesiastical too, some 
reason must be given why; “ for that body also consists of 


τ Omnis representatio virtute minor 
est re ipsa, vel veritate, cujus repre- 
sentatio est. Colligitur aperte ex 
S. Thom. [Aquin. Summ. Prim. Se- 
cund. Q[uzest.] ci. Art. 2. [Respons. } 
ad 2. |His words are: Conclusio: 
Cum tradenda hominibus non sunt 
divina mysteria nisi secundum eorum 
capacitatem, ne contemnant quod 
capere non possunt: recte czeremo- 
nialia veteris legis preecepta sub sensi- 
bilium figurarum velamine rudi illi 
populo tradita sunt.... Ap Prmoum 
ergo dicendum, qued divina non sunt 
revelanda hominibus nisi secundum 
eorum capacitatem, alioquin daretur 
in eis preecipitii materia, dum con- 
temnerent que capere non possent. Et 
ideo utilius fuit, ut sub quodam 
figurarum velamine divina mysteria 


rudi populo traderentur, ut sic saltem 
ea implicite cognoscerent, dum illis 
figuris deservirent ad honorem Dei. 
Ap Sxrcunpum dicendum, quod sicut 
poetica non capiuntur a _ ratione 
humana propter defectum veritatis, qui 
est in eis, ita etiam ratio humana 
perfecte capere non potest divina 
propter excedentem ipsorum verita- 
tem: et ideo utrobique opus est re- 
preesentatione per sensibiles figuras. | 

5. [Quia] posset contingere quod con- 
gregati in Concilio Generali essent 
pauci et viles, tam in re, quam in homi- 
num reputatione, respectu illorum, qui 
ad illud Concilium Generale minime 
convenissent, &c.—Ockam. Dial. par. 
3. lib. iii. cap. 13. [apud Goldast. 
Monarch. §. Roman. Imper. tom. ii. 
p- 829. ] 


254 The 


assistance of the Holy Ghost pledged to the Councils of the Church. 


Corrrrence men ;”' those men, neither, all equal in their perfections of 


WITH 
Fisner. 


V[not... 
caret(male) 
Edit. 1686. | 


Consid. III. 


2 [the as- 
sistance... 
Editt.1673, 
and 1686.] 


John xvi. 
159: 


John xiv. 
16. 

Matt. 
XXVili. 20. 
Matt. xvi. 
18. 


Luke xxii. 
Sp 

Matt. xviii. 
20. 


Acts xv.28. 


knowledge and judgment, whether acquired by industry, or 
rooted in nature, or infused by God ;—not all equal, nor 
any one of them perfect and absolute, or freed from 
passion and human infirmities. Nor doth their meeting 
together make them infallible in all things; though the 
act which is hammered out by many together, must in 
reason be perfecter than that which is but the child of one 
man’s sufficiency. If, then, a General Council have no 
ground of not erring from the men or the meeting, either it 
must not’ be at all, or it must be by some assistance and 
power upon them when they are so met together; and this, 
if it be less than the assistance of the Holy Ghost, it cannot 
make them secure against error. 
1.—Thirdly, I consider, That the assistance of the Holy 
Ghost is without error. That is no question; and as little 
there is, That a council hath it. But the doubt that troubles 
is, Whether all’ assistance of the Holy Ghost be afforded in 
such a high manner, as to cause all the definitions of a 
council in matters fundamental in the faith, and in remote 
' deductions from it, to be alike infallible? Now the Romanists, 
to prove there is “ infallible assistance," produce some 
places of Scripture; but no one of them infers, much less 
enforces, an infallibility. The places which Stapleton there 
rests upon, are these: “ I will send you the Spirit of Truth, 
Which will lead you into all truth.” And, “ This Spirit 
shall abide with you for ever.” And, “ Behold, I am with 
you to the end of the world.”? ‘To these, others add, “" The 
founding of the Church upon the rock, against which the 
gates of hell shall not prevail.” And Christ’s prayer for 
S. Peter, “ that his faith fail not.’ And Christ’s promise, 
“that where two or three are gathered together in His 
name, He will be in the midst of them.” And that in the 
Acts, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” 


τ Eeclesia est unum corpus mysti- vatur.]—[Gabr.] Biel. in Exposit. Can. 
cum per similitudinem ad naturale. Misse, &c. Ject. xxiii. [fol. xxxi. v. 
—Durand. in III. Sentent. Distinct. col. 2.] 

xiv. Quest. i. No. 5.—[Heee ordinatio ἃ Omnem veritatem infallibiliter 
in ccelo preefulget: in naturis osten- docendi, &c.—Stapleton. Relect. [Con- 
ditur: in Christo operibus exempla- γον.) Pref. ad Lectorem. [Op., tom. i. 
tur: in divinis legibus preecipitur: in  p. 514.] 

toto corpore Christi mystico obser- 


A promise to lead into all truth is of all necessary truth. 255 
2.—For the first, which is, “ leading into all truth,” and ὥμποττον 


XXXIII. 


that “for ever ;” “ all,”* is not always universally taken in 
Scripture. Nor is it here simply for “ all truth:” for then 
a General Council could no more err in matter of fact than 
in matter of faith, in which yet yourselves grant it may err.’ 
But “ into all truth,” ? is a limited “ all: “ into all truth 
absolutely necessary to salvation ;” and this, when they 
suffer themselves to be led by the Blessed Spirit, by the 
word of God; and all truth which Christ had before, at 
least fundamentally, delivered unto them: “ He shall receive 
of Mine, and show it unto you.” And again, “ He shall 
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remem- 
brance, which I have told you.” And for this necessary 
truth, too, the Apostles received this promise, “‘ not for 
themselves and a council, but for themselves and the whole 
Catholic Church,” * of which a council, be it never so general, 





John xvi. 
14. 


John xiv. 
26. 


is avery little part. Yea, and this very assistance is not so ab- 
solute, nor in that manner, to the whole Church, as it was to 
the Apostles ; neither doth Christ in that place speak directly 
of a council, but of His Apostles’ preaching and doctrine. 
3.—As for Christ’s “ being with them unto the end of the 
world,” the fathers are so various, that, in the sense of the 
ancient Church, we may understand Him present in majesty, 


x [Et quod de omni Israele dici vi- 
detur, in his tantum quos sibi gratie 
electio reliquos fecit, ostenditur.... 
ut unum genus in duas species intelli- 
geremus esse divisum, et omnem ho- 
minem, omnem plenitudinem, omnem 
Israélem non semper ad universitatem, 
sed plerumque ad partem esse refer- 
endum.—S.]| Prosp. [Aquitan. seu po- 
tius, ignoti auctoris,] de vocat. [omn. ] 
gentium, lib. i. cap. 10. [apud ΒΚ. 
Prosper. Op., col. 862. B—D. ] 

Y Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctorit.] 
lib. ii. cap. 8. ὃ (5. Op., tom. ii. col. 
64. A.] Where he saith, Respondeo, 
quidam [aiunt,| queestionem fuisse de 
facto, non de jure, [quam Concilium 
illud judicavit, videlicet, num Jesus 
necandus esset ;] in ejusmodi [autem] 
judiciis concilia errare posse, non du- 
bium est. 

z Dubium est, an quod dicit, Docebit 
omnia, 8. Joh. xiv. 26. referendum 
sit, (ad illud [verbum,] Queecunque 
dixero vobis,) quasi non aliud doc- 
turum Spiritum Sanctum dicat, quam 
quod Ipse antea docuisset, [quemad- 


modum et verbum suggeret eo utique 
refertur.] Non repugnabo, si quis ita 
velit interpretari, &¢c.—Maldonat. in 
S. Johan. xiv. [26. ] 

@ Bellarmin. de Cone. [auctorit.] 
lib. ii. cap. 9. § [8. Op., tom. ii. col. 
80. A.| Assistit [enim concilio] Spi- 
ritus Sanctus non [tam] propter [ip- 
sum] concilium, quam [propter] He- 
clesiam universam. 

b [Loquebatur enim, (se. Johan. 
cap. xii. 8. Me autem non semper 
habebitis,) de praesentia corporis Sui. 
Nam secundum majestatem Suam, se- 
cundum providentiam, secundum in- 
effabilem et invisibilem gratiam, im- 
pletur quod ab Eo dictum est, Ecce 
Ego vobiscum, &c.]—S. Augustin. in 
Johan. [ Evang. cap. xii.] Tract. 1. [Op., 
tom. iii. par. 2. col. 634. A.|—[Christus 
in coelum ascendens, discessit quidem 
carne, sed preesens est majestate, se- 
cundum illud, quod ait; Ecce Ego 
vobiscum, &¢c.]—S. Isidor. [ Hispalens. | 
Sentent. lib. i. cap.14. [ὃ 17. Op., tom. 
vi. p. 151. ed. Lorenzanze. | 


256 


Patristic interpretations of these and the kindred texts vary. 


Conrerence in power,® in aid and assistance? against the difficulties 


WITH 
FIsHER. 








they should find for preaching Christ ; which is the native 
sense, as I take it: and this promise was made to support 
their weakness. As for His presence “in teaching by the 
Holy Ghost,’* few mention it; and no one of them which 
doth, speaks of any infallible assistance, farther than the 
succeeding Church keeps to the word of the Apostles, 
as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit. Besides, 
the fathers! refer their speech to the Church Universal, not 
to any council or representative body. And Maldonate 
adds, “That this His presence by teaching is, or may 


¢ {Sed quid sibi vult, esse Eum in 
circuitu populi Sui, ex hoe nune et 
usque in seculum; quia non relin- 
quet virgam peccatorum, &c.? In 
virga potestatem intelligi convenit; 
insigne enim potestatis est.]|—S.Hilar. 
[Pictav. Tractat.] in Ps. exxiv. [cap. 7. 
Op., col. 405. C.|—S. Justin. Martyr. 
Dialog. cum Tryphone. ([‘There is no 
passage in Justin Martyr’s dialogue 
with Trypho—nor does there appear 
to be one in any of his works—which 
comments on the text announcing 
our Lord’s perpetual presence in the 
Church. |—[ Quod utique nune eadem 
potentia Dominus indesinenter ope- 
ratur, quiait, Ecce Ego vobiscum, ἃς. 
—S. Prosper. [Aquitan. seu potius, 
ignoti auctoris,] ad Demetriadem 
[virgin. |Epist.[cap.13.apud S.Prosper. 
Op., col. 945. A.] 

4 [Sciens ergo Dominus, &c.] 8. 
Hilar. in Ps. exxiv. [πο] sup. p. 181. 
note £.|—[Et ne preedicantium minis- 
teria humano tantum viderentur 
opere peragenda, inquit, Ecce Ego 
vobiscum, &c. Id est, cum sicut oves 
introieritis in medium luporum, nolite 
de vestra infirmitate trepidare, sed de 
Mea potestate confidite, qui vos usque 
ad consummationem seeculi in omni 
hoe opere non derelinquam ; non hoc 
ut nihil patiamini, sed, quod multo 
majus est, preestiturus ut nulla 
sevientium crudelitate superemini. 
In Mea enim potestate praedicabitis, 
&e.]—S. Prosper. [Aquitan. seu potius, 
ignoti auctoris, ] de vocat. [omn.] gen- 
tium, lib. ii. cap. 2. [apud S. Prosper. 
Op., col. 888. D.]—[ Ut autem noverint 
corda fidelium habere se, unde ad 
supernam sapientiam spretis mundi 
cupiditatibus valeant elevari, spondet 
nobis Dominus preesentiam suam, 
dicens, Eece ego vobiscum, &c.}—S. 


Leon. [Magn.] de Resurrect. Domini, 
Serm. ii. cap. 3. [Serm. Ixxii. (al. 
lxx.) Op., tom. i. col. 286. ed. Bal- 
lerini, ubi sup. p. 181. note £.|—Jesus 
igitur noster solem stare fecit, &c.|— 
S.Isidor. [Hispalens.] in Josue, cap. 
xii. [ubi sup. p. 181. note ἢ] 

© [Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, κ. T.A. ἔπεμψε 
δὲ ἡμῖν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τὸν παράκλητον, δι 
οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐστι καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν 
αὐλίζεται, οὐκ ὀθνεῖον ἡμῖν ἐγχέων, ἀλλὰ 
τὺ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς 
ἴδιον πνεῦμα.]---. Cyril. [ Alexandr. ] 
de [Sancta] Trinitat. dialog. vii. [Op., 
tom. v. p. 642. A. ed. Aubert. Venet. 
1638.]—[ Quod utique, &c.]—S. Pros- 
per. [Aquitan. seu potius, ignot. auc- 
tor.] ad Demetriad. [ubi sup. note °.] 

f {Sciens ergo Dominus... . ei qui 
in Eum credat adsistit.|—S. Hilar. in 
Ps. exxiv. [ubi sup. p. 181. note 1.1-- 
[ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ, x.7.A.]|—S.Cyril. [Alexandr. ] 
de [Sancta] Trinitate, lib. vii. [ubi sup. 
noie ®.] — [Sic eos allocutum Deum, 
quemadmodum Christus nos nondum 
natos, etiam longe post futuros, nec 
tantum nos, sed etiam eos omnes qui 
futuri sunt post nos. Omnibus enim 
dicebat, quos suos futuros videbat, 
Ecce Ego vobiscum, &c.|—S. Augustin. 
de Genesi ad literam, [lib.] vi. cap. 8. 
[Op., tom. 111. par. 1. col. 201. G.J— 
[idem est super ccelorum altitudines 
victor mortis ascendens, et usque ad 
consummationem szeculi universam 
ecclesiam non relinquens.|—S. Leon. 
[Magn.| de Nativitat. Dom. Serm. x. 
cap. 5. (Serm. xxx. (al. xxxi.) Op., 
tom. i. col. 109. ed. Ballerini.|—[Jesus 
igitur noster solem, &c.|—S. Isidor. 
[Hispalens.] in Josue, cap. xii. [ubi 
sup. p. 181. note 4] In all which 
places, vobiscum is either interpreted 
cum suis, or fidelibus, or universa 
ecclesia. 


The Rock (Matth. xvi. 18.) is the Faith, not the Person, of S. Peter. 257 


be, a collection from the place, but is not the intention of Sxcrroy 
Christ.” ¢ Bea 
4.—For “the rock upon which the Church is founded,” [Matth. 
which is the next place, we dare not lay any other foun- epee 
dation than Christ : Christ laid His Apostles, no question, but Eph. a 
upon Himself. With these S. Peter was laid, no man 
questions, and in prime place of order, (Would his claiming 
successors be content with that?) as appears, and divers 
fathers witness, by his particular designment, Tw es Petrus. 
But yet the “ rock” even there spoken of is not S. Peter’s , .. 
person, either only or properly, but the faith which he carent 
professed. And to this, besides the evidence which is in iene ead 
text and truth, the fathers come in' with very full consent.” 1686.] 


& [Fateor Christum, quatenus Deus 
est, ubique esse, sed aliam hic pre- 
sentiam suam Apostolis pollicetur ; 
fateor Christum misso Spiritu Sancto 
ecclesiam usque ad consummationem 
seculi gubernaturum,| idque ex hoc 
loco colligi non nego, | quemadmodum 
1111, quos modo nominayimus, auc- 
tores (sc. S. Cyril. Alexandr., Salvian., 
et S. Leo,) recte collegerunt;| sed non 
querimus, quid [ex eo, quod Christus 
dixit,] colligatur, sed quid dicere 
voluerit. —Maldonat. in 8. Matth. 
XXviii. [20.] 

h §. Ignatius, Epist. ad Philadelph. 
Qui suam firmavit Eeclesiam super pe- 
tram, eedificatione spirituali. [ὃς κατὰ 
τὸ ἴδιον βούλημα ἐστήριξεν αὐτοῦ βεβαίως 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐπὶ τῇ πέτρᾳ, οἰκοδομῇ 
πνευματικῇ, ἀχειροποιήτῳ, κ. τ. A.— 
S. Ignat. Epist. Interpolat. ad Phila- 
delph. in Inscript. apud Patr. Apostol. 
tom. ii. p. 75. ed. Cotelerii, Amst. 
1724.]—Super hane igitur confes- 
sionis petram Hcclesiz edificatio est. 
—S. Hilar. de Trinitat. lib. vi. [ὃ 36. 
Op., col. 903. E.]—Et paulo post, Hzec 
fides, ecclesize fundamentum est: [per 
hanc fidem infirmes adversus eam sunt 
porte inferorum.—Id. col. 904. A.]— 
Super hane petram edificabo Eccle- 
siam Meam, super confessionem vi- 
delicet Christi, [quia dixerat: Tu 
es Christus, filius Dei viventis.]— 
[ Pseudo-] 8. Gregor. Nyssen. de Trin. 
adversus Judzeos, [seu potius, Testi- 
monia de adventu Domini in carne, 
adversus Judeeos, cap. ult. Op., tom. 
ii. p. 162. B. ed. Paris. 1638.]—Ut 
hac ratione certam omnibus confes- 
sionem traderet, quam ab eo inspiratus 
Petrus tanquam basim, ac fundamen- 


VOL, II.—LAUD. 


tum jecit, super quod Dominus Ec- 
clesiam suam extruxit. [ἀλλὰ τὴν 
ἀσφαλῆ ὁμολογίαν διδάξαι πάντας βουλό- 
μενος, ἣν ἐμπνευσθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ ὡς κρηπῖδα καὶ βάθρον ἀπέθετο, 
ep’ ἣ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν ὁ Κύριος 
gxoddunoe.|—S. Isidor. Pelusiot. [de 
interpret. SS.] Epistol. lib. i. Epist. 
cexxxv. [ad Serenum, Op., p. 67. B. 
ed. Paris. 1638. |—Petram opinor quasi 
denominative, aliud nihil quam incon- 
cussam et firmissimam  discipuli 
fidem appellans, in qua Keclesia 
Christi ita fundata, et firmata esset, 
ut non laberetur, ὅθ. [πέτραν οἶμαι 
παρωνύμως, ἕτερον οὐδὲν, ἢ τὴν ἀκατά- 
σειστον καὶ ἑδραιοτάτην τοῦ μαθητοῦ 
πίστιν ἀποκαλῶν, ἐφ᾽ ἣ καὶ ἀδιαπτώτως 
ἐρήρεισταίτε καὶ διαπέπηγεν ἡ ἐκκλησία 
Χριστοῦ, καὶ αὐταῖς ἀνάλωτος ταῖς ἅδου 
πύλαις εἰσαεὶ διαμένουσα.]---8. Cyril. 
Alexandr. de Trinitat. lib. iv. [Op., 
tom. v. p. 507. E.|—Petram appellat 
fidei pietatem, veritatis professionem, 
&e. Et super hance petram edificabo 
Ecclesiam Meam. [καλεῖ δὲ αὐτὴν ἐν 
τῇ σκέπῃ τῆς πέτρας, ἵνα μὴ πάλιν μέ- 
λαινα γίνηται πέτραν δὲ καλεῖ τὴν 
εὐσεβῆ πίστιν, τὴν ἀληθῆ ὁμολογίαν" 
καὶ γὰρ τῷ Κυρίῳ εἰρηκότι... Πέτρος 
ἔφησε: Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς, κ- T. AW ᾧ 
ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων... Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, 
k. τ. λ.]-- B. Theodoret. [Episcop. 
Cyren. Interpret.] in Cantic. [Cantic. 
ii. 14. lib. 11, Op., tom. i. col. 1028. 
D. ed. Sirmond. Paris. 1642.]—In 
vera fide persistite, et vitam vestram 
in petra Hecclesiz, hoe est, in con- 
fessione beati Petri apostolorum prin- 
cipis solidate. — ὃ. Gregor. [Magn. 
Registr. ] Kpistol. lib. 111, Epist. xxxiii. 
{lib. iv. Indict, 12. Epist. xxxviii. ad 


5 


258 The Promise (Matth. xvi. 18.) is of indefectibility not of infallibilty. 


Conrerence And this, “ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it,” is not spoken of the not erring of the Church princi- 
pally, but of the not falling away of it from the founda- 
tion.’ Now, a Church may err, and dangerously too, and 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


Theodelindam Reginam, Op., tom. 
ii. col. 718. D.]—Super eum edifi- 
cavit Ecclesiam, quia enim confessus 
erat, &c. quod hee confessio funda- 
mentum erit, Xe. [ἀμείβεται τὸν 
Πέτρον ὁ Κύριος, μισθὸν αὐτῷ διδοὺς 
μέγαν, τὸ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθῆναι τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν" ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὡμολόγησεν αὐτὸν 
Υἵον Θεοῦ ὁ Πέτρος, φησὶν ὅτι, αὕτη ἡ 
ὁμολογία ἣν ὡμολόγησας, θεμέλιον μέλ- 
λειν εἶναι τῶν πιστευόντων᾽ ὥστε 
πάντα ἄνθρωπον μέλλοντα κτίζειν τὸν 
τῆς πίστεως οἶκον, ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν 
ὑποτιθέναι θεμέλιον. --- Theophylact. 
[Comment.] in Matt. xvi. [p. 98. E. 
ed. Paris. 1635.]— Quid est, super 
hance petram ? &c. Super hane fidem, 
super id quod dictum est, Tu es 
[Christus, filius Dei vivi.]—S. Au- 
gustin. in 1. Epistol. Johann. cap. 5. 
Tractat. x. [Op., tom. iii. col. 894. B.] 
—Hane confessionem Christus petram 
cum nominasset, Petrum nuncupat 
eum qui primum illam est confessus, 
donans illi hane appellationem tan- 
quam insigne, et monumentum hujus 
confessionis. Hzec enim est revera 
pietatis petra, hac salutis basis, &c. 
[ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν πέτραν καλέσας 
ὃ Χριστὸς, Πέτρον ὀνομάζει τὸν πρώτως 
ταύτην ὁμολογήσαντα γνώρισμα τῆς 


ὁμολογίας τὴν προσηγορίαν Swpovpmevos* 


αὕτη γὰρ ἀληθῶς τῆς εὐσεβείας ἡ πέτρα' 
αὕτη τῆς σωτηρίας ἡ κρηπίς᾽ τοῦτο τῆς 
πίστεως TO τείχοΞκ᾽ οὗτος ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας 
θεμέλιος" θεμέλιον γὰρ ἄλλον οὐδεὶς δύνα- 
ται, K. τ. A.|—S. Basil. Seleucize, Orat. 
xxv. [in fin. Op., p. 142. B. ad cale. 
Op., S. Gregor. Thaumaturg. &c. ed. 
Paris. 1622.1-- ἵνα γένηται πᾶσι τοῖς 
ἐξ αὐτῶν μεταλαμβάνουσιν εἰς ἄφεσιν 
ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, εἰς ἁγιασ- 
μὸν ψυχῶν καὶ σωμάτων, εἰς καρποφορίαν 
ἔργων ἀγαθῶν, εἰς στηριγμὸν τῆς ἁγίας 
σοῦ καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλή- 
σιας, ἣν ἐθεμελίωσα5)] ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν 
τῆς πίστεως, [ἵνα πύλαι ἅδου μὴ κατισχύ- 
σωσιν αὐτῆς, ῥυόμενος αὐτὴν ἀπὸ πάσης 
αἱρέσεως καὶ σκανδάλων καὶ τῶν ἐργαζο- 
μένων τὴν ἀνομίαν, διαφυλάττων αὐτὴν 
μεχρὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. |—S. 
Jacobi Liturgia [Hierosolymitana, 
apud Assemanni Cod. Liturg. (lib. 
iv. par. 2.) tom. v. pp. 40, 41. Con- 
siderable doubt has been thrown 
upon the genuineness of the latter 
clauses of this prayer.]—And some 
which join the person of S. Peter, 


profess itis propter robur confessionis. 
[Ex. grat. καὶ γὰρ Ὑἵον Θεοῦ Χριστὸν 
κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀποκάλυψιν 
ἐπιγνόντα αὐτὸν ἕνα τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ 
Σίμωνα πρέτερον καλούμενον, ἐπωνόμασε 
Miérpov.|—Justin. Martyr. Dialog. cum 
Tryphon. [Jud. Sect. ¢. Op., p.195. Ὁ. 
ed. Benedict.)—[kal ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι δίκαιοι 
ἐλέῳ τειχίζονται, ἄκουε τί φησι τῷ Πέτρῳ, 
τῳ στύλῳ, τῇ κρηπῖδι, τῷ διὰ τοῦτο κλή- 
θεντι Πέτρῳ, ἐπειδὴ τῇ πίστει πεπετρωμέ- 
νος ἦν, Σίμων, Σίμων, κ. τ. A—Pseudo- | 
S. Chrysostom. Hom. ii. in Ps. 1. [§ 2. 
Op., tom. v. p. 584. C. ed. Benedict. |— 
[Bene conscius sui non ad tempus 
adsumtum, sed jamdudum Deo cogni- 
tum, Petrus testificatur affectum. 
Quis est enim alius qui de se hoc 
facile profiteri possit? Et ideo quia 
solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus 
antefertur ; major enim omnibus cari- 
tas.|—S. Ambros. Expos. Evang. sec. 
Lucam, lib. x. in cap. xxiv. [175, &e. 
Op., tom.i. col. 1542. D. ed. Benedict. } 
—And 8S. Gregory gives it for a rule, 
when petra is read in the singular 
number, (and so it is here,) Christus 
est, “Christ is signified.” [Quem alium 
signat petra, nisi Hum, de quo per 
Paulum dicitur, Petra autem erat 
Christus?—S. Gregor. Moral. lib. iii. 
in cap. ii. B. Job. cap. 30. Op., tom. 
i. col. 96. E.—Et, Quia petree nomine 
Christus accipitur, &c.—Id. Moral. 
lib. xix. in cap. xxix. B. Job. cap. 15. 
Op., tom. i. col. 616. D.—-Et, In sacro 
eloquio cum singulari numero petra 
nominatur, quis alius quam Christus 
accipitur’—Id. Moral. lib. xxxi. in 
cap. xxxix. B. Job. cap. 48. Op., 
tom. i. col. 1040. D.] 

i [Et nos transeamus ad ea que se- 
quuntur: Tenui Eum, nec dimittam, 
&e. (Cant. iii. 4.) Itaest, ex tunc et de- 
inceps] non deficit [genus Christianum, 
nec fides de terra, nec caritas de eccle- 
sia. |—S. Bernard. Serm. lxxix. in Cant. 
[Ὁ]. 181. col. 4. L.]—And Bellarmine 
himself, going to prove Leclesiam 
[visibilem| non posse deficere, begins 
with this very place of Scripture. 
[Primum, id ostenditur ex Scripturis, 
ubi aperte nominatur Ecclesia, Matt. 
xvi. (18.) Super hance petram, &c.— 
Bellarmin.] de ecclesia [militante, ] 
lib. iii. cap, 18. [§ 2. Op., tom. ii. 
col. 145. D.] 


Our Lora’s prayer (Luke xxii. 32.) was only for 8. Peter’s perseverance. 259 


yet not fall from the foundation, especially if that of Bellar- ears 
mine be true, “that there are many things, even de fide, ‘ of ὁ Θ᾿ 
the faith,’ which yet are not necessary to salvation.” * Besides, 
even here again, the promise of this stable edification is to 
the whole Church, not to a council; at least no farther than 
a council builds as a Church is built—that is, upon Christ. 

5.—The next place is “Christ’s prayer for S. Peter’s faith.” [Luke xxii. 
The native sense of which place is, that Christ prayed, and a 
obtained for S. Peter perseverance in the grace of God 
against the strong temptation which was to winnow him 
above the rest. But to conclude an infallibility hence in 
the pope, or in his chair, or in the Roman see, or in a 
General Council, though the pope be president, I find no 
one ancient father that dare adventure it. And Bellarmine! 
himself, besides’ some popes in their own cause—and that in 1 (beside... 
epistles counterfeit or falsely alleged—hath not a father to TOR Τὴ 
name for this sense of the place till he come down to Chryso- 1686.] 
logus, Theophylact, and 8. Bernard; of which Chrysologus’ 
speech is but a flash of rhetoric, and the other two are men 
of yesterday, compared with antiquity, and lived when (it 
was God’s great grace and learned men’s wonder) the cor- 
ruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they 
are. And Thomas” is resolute, that what is meant here beyond 





liorum, ante concilium Chalcedonense, 
Hortamur te, inquit, frater honora- 
bilis, ut his, que a beatissimo papa 


k Quinto, si esset [vera Calvini sen- 
tentia, maxima pars dogmatum fidei 
in dubium revocari posset: nam] 


multa sunt de fide, que non sunt ab- 
solute necessaria ad salutem.—(Bel- 
larmin.]| de ecclesia [ militante, | lib. iii. 
cap. 14. ὃ 18. [Op., tom. ii. col. 150. 
A 


1 [For the passages from the 
writings of the popes, vindicating the 
papal infallibility, vide supra, p. 20. 
note ». Bellarmine adds,] de Rom. 
Pont. lib. iv. cap. ὃ. [8 13. Op., tom.i. 
col. 807. D.: Przeter hos pontifices 
non desunt etiam alii auctores, qui 
eodem modo exponunt. Theophylactus 
in Luce cap. xxii. aperte docet dari 
Petro hoc privilegium, quia ipse futurus 
erat princeps, et caput aliorum, ac 
proinde dari omnibus aliis, qui illi 
in principatu succederent: Quia te 
habeo, inquit, principem discipulorum, 
confirma czeteros. Hoc enim decet te, 
&c. (ubi sup. p. 210. note *.) Petrus 
Chrysologus in Epistola ad Eutyche- 
tem, que habetur in primo tomo Conci- 


Romane civitatis scripta sunt, obe- 
dienter attendas; quoniam B. Petrus, 
qui in propria sede vivit, et preesidet, 
preestat queerentibus fidei veritatem. 
(Cf. Concil. tom. iv. col. 38. A.) . 
Bernardus in Epist. exe. ad Innocen- 
tium: (Op., fol. 227. col. 2. ΒΕ.) Oportet, 
inquit, ad vestrum referri apostolatum 
pericula queeque et scandala emergentia 
in regno Dei, ea preesertim que de 
fide contingunt. Dignum namque 
arbitror, ibi potissimum  resarciri 
damna fidei, ubi non possit fides sen- 
tire defectum. Hzec quippe hujus 
preerogativa sedis. Cui enim alteri 
aliquando dictum est, Ego pro te, &c?| 
m [S. Thom. Aquin. Summ.] Se- 
cund. Secund. Q[uest.] ii. A[rtic.] 3. 
[seu potius, Ibid. Quest. i. Artic. 10. 
Unde et Dominus, Lue, xxii. Petro 
dixit, quem summum pontificem 
constituit, Ego pro te rogavi, &e. Ht 
hujus ratio est, quia una fides debet 


Ss 2 


260 Promise of our Lord’s presence alleged forinfallibility of Gen. Councils 


Coxrzrence 8. Peter’s person is referred to the whole Church. And the 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 





Matt.xviii. 
19, 20. 


Gloss upon the Canon Law is more peremptory than he, even 
to the denial that it is meant of the pope." And if this 
place warrant not the pope’s faith, where is the infallibility 
of the council that in your doctrine depends upon it? 
6.—The next place is Bellarmine’s choice one, and his 
first; and he says, “it is a proper place for proof of the in- 
fallibility of General Councils.”° This place is Christ’s pro- 
mise: “ Where two or three are gathered together in My 
name, there am I in the midst of them ;” and he tells us, 
“the strength of the argument is not taken from these words 
alone, but as they are continued with the former ; and that 
the argument is drawn a minori ad majus, ‘from the less to 
the greater””’? Thus: “If two or three gathered together 
in My name do always obtain that which they ask at God’s 


esse totius Ecclesiz ; secundum illud, 
1 Cor.i.(10.) Idipsum dicatis omnes, 
&c.| Probat enim (S. Thom. Aquin. ] 
ex his verbis, fidem Ecclesizve univer- 
salis non posse deficere. 

» [Quzero, de qua Ecclesia intelligas, 
quod hie dicitur, quod non possit 
errare? Si de ipso papa, qui ecclesia 
dicitur, &c. Sed] certum est, quod Papa 
errare potest.—Gloss. [in Decret. par. 
ii.] Caus. xxiv. Quest. 1. cap. (ix.) A 
recta ergo. 

° Testimonia propria sunt tria: 
primum est Matt. xviii. (19.) [ubi sunt 
duo, &c.]—Bellarmin. de concil. [auc- 
toritat.] lib. ii. cap. 2. ὃ 3. [Op., 
tom. ii. col. 53. ὦ. The title of 
the chapter is: Concilia generalia a 
pontifice confirmata, errare non posse, 
ex Scripturis demonstratur.] — [Ad 
tertium dicendum, quod] firmitas 
conciliorum illis [Christi] verbis pro- 
prie non innititur: [quia nec Christus 
ibi de conciliis episcoporum loquitur, 
sed de quayis fidelium unanimi con- 
gregatione; nec etsi Christus adsit in 
medio talium, tamen ad omnem af- 
fectum adest, aut ad hune qui est 
judicare de fide.]|—Stapleton. Relect. 
Controy. [Controy.] vi. [de medio 
judic. Eccles. in causa fidei,] Q[ueest. ] 
iii. A[rtic.] 4. [Respons.j}ad 3. [Op., 
tom. i. p. 821. D.] — Non [enim 
ad infallibilem certitudinem alicujus 
sententiz, in quam plures in nomine 
Christi consentiant,] locus hie [evan- 
gelii] proprie accommodari debet, [sed 
ad efficaciam consensionis plurium ad 
id impetrandum, quod unanimiter in 


Christi nomine petunt, si id quidem 
ad eorum salutem expediat.—Gregor. 
de] Valentia, [Commentar. Theologic. | 
in [Secund. Secund.] 5. Thom. [Aquin. | 
tom. iii. Disp. i. [de fide,] Q[uzest.] 1. 
[de objecto fidei, } Punct. vii. ὃ 45. [de 
Conciliis, col. 320. C. ed. Paris. 1609. | 

P [Calvyinus non adeo magni facit 
hoc testimonium, propterea quod ex eo 
videatur probari posse, etiam concilium 
duorum hominum non posse errare. Sed 
is hoc testimonium non contemnet, qui 
observarit, argumentum sumi non 
simpliciter ex his verbis, sed ex his 
verbis continuatis cum superioribus, 
et propterea] addita argumentatione 
a minori ad majus. [Dixerat enim 
antea Dominus de homine incorrigi- 
bili: Dic ecclesiew, &e. At ne quis 
ecclesiam, sive congregationem preela- 
torum contemnendam putaret, ad- 
junxit continuo: Amen dico vobis, 
quzcunque ligaveritis, ὅσο. ]—Bellar- 
min. de Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. 
cap. 2.§ 3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 54. A.] 
—Et, [Hee tamen Christi verba ad 
conciliorum firmitatem merito appli- 
carunt Patres in Synodo VI. (Constant. 
III.) Act. xvii. (Gr. xviii.) et in Synodo 
Chalcedon. in Epist. ad Leonem, (ef. 
Concil. tom. vi. col. 1023. D. et, Concil. 
tom. iv. col. 834. D.) per argumen- 
tum a minore ad majus: quia si in 
duorum aut trium conventu Christus 
adest .... multo magis in concilio 
tot pastorum, &c.]—Stapleton. Relect. 
Controv. [Controy.] vi. Q{uzest.] 11]. 
Afrtic.] 4. fut sup. note®. Op., tom. i. 
p. 822. A.] 


Its primary meaning.—Bellarmine’s argum. a minor. examined. 


hands, to wit, wisdom and knowledge of those things which 
are necessary for them, how much more shall all the bishops 
gathered together” in a council “ always obtain wisdom and 
knowledge to judge those things which belong to the direc- 
tion of the whole Church ?”4 I answer, first: It is most 
true that here is little strength in these words alone; for 
though the fathers make different interpretations of this 
place of Scripture, yet most of them agree in this, That this 
place is to be understood of consent in prayer :" and this is 
manifest enough in the text itself. Secondly, I think there 
is as little strength in them by the argument drawn ὦ minori 
ad majus; and that I prove two ways. First, because 
though that argument hold in natural and necessary things, 
yet I doubt it holds not either in voluntary or promised 
things, or things which depend upon their institution : for 
he that promises the less, doth not hereby promise the 
greater ; and he which will do the less, will not always do 
the greater. Secondly, because this argument from the 
less to the greater can never follow but where and so far as 
the thing upon which the argument is founded agrees to the 
less; for if it do not always agree to the less, it cannot 
necessarily pass from thence to the greater. Now, that 


4 [Quorum verborum hee sententia συμφωνίας" συμφωνοῖντες δὲ νοοῦνται, 


est:] Si duo vel tres congregati in 
nomine Meo, obtinent semper quod 
petunt a Deo, [nimirum sapientiam, 
et lumen, quod sufficit eis ad cogno- 
scenda ea, que ipsis necessaria sunt, 
quanto magis episcopi omnes congre- 
gati in nomine Meo, semper obtine- 
bunt, quod juste petunt, id est, sapien- 
tiam, et lumen ad indicanda ea, quee 
ad totam ecclesiam dirigendam per- 
tinent. |—Bellarmin. ibid. § 4. [Op., 
tom. ii. col. 54. C.] 

x Ubi duo vel tres pari spiritu et 
voluntate collecti sunt, ὅθ. [kal γὰρ 
ἀπειλήσας ἐκεῖνα τῇ φιλονεικίᾳ, τὰ 
μεγάλα ἐνταῦθα τῆς συμφωνίας τίθησιν 
ἔπαθλα εἴγε καὶ τὸν πάτερα πείθουσιν 
οἱ συμφωνοῦντες, ὑπὲρ ὧν αἰτοῦσι, καὶ 
τὸν Χριστὸν ἔχουσιν εἰς τὸ μέσον.]--- 
5. Chrysostom. Hom. [1χ. al.] lxi. in 
Matth. xviii. [20. Op., tom. vii. 
p. 608. D.J—[ovvdye: ἡμᾶς διὰ τῶν 
τοιούτων ῥημάτων εἰς Thy ἀγάπην᾽ ἐπεὶ 
γὰρ ἐκώλυσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ σκανδαλίζειν 
ἀλλήλους, καὶ βλάπτειν καὶ βλάπτεσθαι; 
νῦν λέγει καὶ περὶ τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους 


οὐχ οἱ ἐπὶ κακῷ συνερχόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ 
ἐπ᾿’ ἀγαθῷ" ὅρα γὰρ τί εἴπεν᾽ ἐὰν δύο 
ὑμῶν, τουτέστι τῶν πιστευόντων, τῶν 
ἐναρέτων .. .. ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο πολλάκις 
εὐχόμενοι οὐ λαμβένομεν, διότι οὐδὲ 
συμφωνίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔχομεν" ]--- 
Theophyl. in [1ο6. (86.1 Matth. xviii. 
[20.) p. 106. D.]—[Ubicunque fuerint 
duo aut tres, &c. non homines ab 
ecclesia dividit qui instituit et fecit 
ecclesiam, sed exprobrans discordiam 
perfidis, et fidelibus pacem sua voce 
commendans, ostendit magis esse se 
cum duobus aut tribus unanimiter 
orantibus, quam cum dissidentibus 
plurimis, plusquam impetrari posse 
paucorum concordi pace quam dis- 
cordiosa oratione multorum.]| — S. 
Cyprian. lib. iv. Epist. 4. [de unitate 
ecclesia, Op., p. 198. ed. Benedict. ] 
—([Ipse enim quia pax atque charitas 
est, sedem atque habitationem in 
bonis atque pacificis voluntatibus 
collocabit. |—S. Hilar. in Matth. xviii. 
[20. apud Catenam Auream. ] 


261 


SEcTION 


XXXII. 


262 


Conditions necessary for obtaining the objects of prayer. 


Conrerence upon which this argument is grounded here, is infallible 


WITH 
FISHER. 


hearing and granting the prayers of two or three met 
together in the name of Christ ; but this infalhbilty is not 
always found in this less congregation where two or three 
are gathered together. For they often meet and pray, yet 
obtain not ; because “ there are divers other conditions neces- 
sarily required,” as S. Chrysostom observes, “to make the 
prayers of a congregation heard,” beside their gathering to- 
gether in the name of Christ ;* and therefore it is not 
extended to a greater congregation or council, unless the 
same conditions be still observed: neither doth Christ’s 
promise, Ero in medio, “I will be in the midst of them,” infer 
that they—the greater or the less, three or three hundred— 
have all, even necessary things, infallibly granted unto them 
as oft as they ask, if they ask not as well as they ought 
as what they ought.£ And yet most true it is, that where 
more or fewer are gathered together in the name of Christ, 
there is He in the midst of them—but to assist and to grant 
whatsoever He shall find fit for them, not infallibly whatso- 
ever they shall think fit to ask for themselves; and there- 
fore 5. Cyprian, though he use this very argument, ὦ minori 
ad majus, “ from the less to the greater,” yet he presumes 
not to extend it as Bellarmine doth, to the obtaining of in- 
fallibility ; but only useth it in the general way, in which 


s Quomodo igitur a Patre cuncta 
non consequentur? Quia multz sunt 
cause non impetrandi, &c. [Πῶς οὖν 
οὐ πάντα ἐπιτυγχάνουσιν ; ὅτι πολλαὶ 
αἱ αἰτίαι τοῦ ἀποτυγχάνειν ἢ γὰρ 
ἀσύμφορα πολλάκις αἰτοῦσι. καὶ τί 
θαυμάζεις εἰ ἕτεροι τινες, ὕπουγε καὶ 
Παῦλος τοῦτο ἔπαθεν, ἡνίκα ἤκουσεν, 
ἀρκεῖ σοι ἣ χάρις μου.]---. Chrysostom. 
Hom. [Ἰχ. al. lxi.] in Matth. xviii. 
[20. Op., tom. vii. p. 608. D.J—Et 
Bellarminus ipse, [his verbis: sc. ] 
Si congregari in nomine Christi sit 
nota Ecclesiz, [certe] non erit con- 
gregari quomodocunque [in nomine 
Christi :] sic enim omnes heereses 
et schismata congregantur in nomine 
Christi. Sed [erit congregari ab illis, 
qui funguntur Christi auctoritate, 
quales sunt episcopi legitime or- 
dinati, &c.— Bellarmin.] de notis 
ecclesie, lib. iv. cap. 2. § [16. Op., 
tom. ii. col. 164. D.| 

t Nee etsi Christus adsit in medio 


talium, tamen ad omnem effectum 
adest, aut ad hune qui est judicare 
de fide.—Stapleton. Relect. Controy. 
[Controv.] vi. Q[usest.] iii. A[rtic.] 4. 
[ubi sup. p. 260. note °. |—- [Nos vero per 
inductionem ex contrario concludi- 
mus: si singuli, ergo et omnes simul 
errare possunt, quamvis in nomine 
Domini congregati et uno ore do- 
centes. At dixit Deus se fore in 
medio eorum. Certe dixit, et est in 
medio ipsorum ut Deus: etiam in 
medio errantium, ne aberrent ad 
mortem:] sed nec illi semper ad 
Deum respiciunt, qui in medio 
ipsorum est: nec Deus sic adest iis 
qui respiciunt ad Ipsum, ut omnem 
veritatem doceat in instanti et omni 
tempore simul: [omnem veritatem 
docet, nos vero successive capimus.— 
Fr.] Junius in Bellarmin. [Controy. 
iv.] de Concil. [et Eccles.] lib, ii. 
in cap. 2. [Op., tom. ii. col. 1070. 
ed. Genevee, 1613. | 


Acts xv. 28. alleged for Infallibility of General Councils. 


there neither is nor can be doubt of the truth of it. Thus: 
“Tf two that are of one mind to Godward can do so much, 
what might be done if there were unanimity among all 
Christians ?””" Undoubtedly more, but not all whatsoever 
they should ask, unless all other requisites were present. 
Thirdly: In this their own great champions* disagree from 
Bellarmine, or he from them. For Gregory de Valentia and 
Stapleton tell us, “That this place doth not belong pro- 
perly to prove an infallible certainty of any sentence in 
which more agree in the name of Christ, but to the efficacy 
of consent for obtaining that which more shall pray for in 
the name of Christ, if at least that be for their souls’ health : 
For else you may prove out of this place, that not only the 
definition of a General Council, but even of a provincial —nay, 
of two or three bishops gathered together,—is valid, and that 
without the pope’s assent.” 

7.—The last place mentioned for the infallibility of 
General Councils is that, where the Apostles say of them- 
selves and the council held by them, “It seems good to the 
Holy Ghost and to us.” And they might well say it; for 
they had infallibly the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and 
they kept close to His direction. But I do not find that any 
General Council since, though they did implore, as they 
ought, the assistance of that Blessed Spirit, did ever take 
upon them to say, in terminis, “‘in express terms,” of their 
definitions, Visum est Spiritut Sancto et nobis, “It seemed 
good to the Holy Ghost and to us ;’—acknowledging even 
thereby, as I conceive, a great deal of difference in the cer- 
tainty of those things which a General Council at after 
determined in the Church, and those which were settled by 
the Apostles when they sat in council. But though I do not 


« Si duo unanimes tantum possunt; 
quid, si unanimitas apud omnes esset ? 
—S. Cypr. lib. iv. Epist. iv. [de unitate 
ecclesize, ubi sup. p. 261. note *.] 

= Non ad infallibilem certitudinem 


loco probabitur, &¢c.—Greg. de Valen. 
tom. ii. in Thom. Disput. i. Q[ueest. |i. 
Punct. vil. § 45. [ubi sup. p. 260. 
note 5.] | And although Stapleton 
approves this argument ὦ minori ad 


alicujus sententie, in quam plures 
in nomine Christi consentiant, locus 
hic Evangelii proprie accommodari 
debet, sed ad efficaciam consensionis 
plurium ad id impetrandum, quod 
unanimiter in Christi nomine petunt, 
si id quidem ad eorum salutem ex- 
pediat. Secus enim non modo ex illo 


majus, yet withal he says: Firmitas 
conciliorum illis Christi verbis proprie 
non innititur: quia nec Christus ibi 
de conciliis episcoporum loquitur, sed 
de quavis fidelium unanimi congrega- 
tione. Nec etsi, &e.—Stapleton. Relect. 
Controv. [Controv.] vi. Q[ueest. ] 111. 
A[rt.] 4. [ubi sup. p. 260. note °.] 


263 


SEcTION 
XOXO 


Actsxv. 28. 


264 


Because Apostles were guided infallibly by H. G. it does not follow 


Conrerence find, that they used this speech punctually, and “in terms,” 


WITH 
FiIsHEer 


yet the fathers, when they met in council, were confident, 
and spake it out, that they had assistance from the Holy 
Ghost; yet so, as that they neither took themselves, nor 
the councils they sat in, as infallibly guided by the Holy 
Ghost, as the Apostles were. And Valentia is very right : 
“That though the council say they are gathered together in 
the Holy Ghost, yet the fathers are neither arrogant in using 
the speech, nor yet infallible, for all that.”’ And this is 
true, whether the pope approve or disapprove their defini- 
tions; though Valentia will not admit that: the pope must 
be, with him, infallible, whatever come of it. Now though 
this be but an example, and include no precept, yet both 
Stapleton’ and Bellarmine* make this place a proper proof 
of the infallibility of General Councils ; and Stapleton” says 
the decrees of councils are “ the very oracles of the Holy 
Ghost,” which is little short of blasphemy ; and Bellarmine 


Σ Quintum argumentum : [Concilii 
patres asserunt se in Spiritu Sancto 
legitime congregari : itemque sta- 
tuunt sub anathemate, &c. At nisi 
infallibiliter per se definiunt, arro- 
ganter id quidem ab illis vel dici vel 
fieri videri posset.] Aut sunt igitur 
arrogantes, quod putandum non est, 
aut infallibiliter [profecto] definiunt. 
{Respondeo: In Spiritu Sancto le- 
gitime congregare concilium non 
aliud est, quam omnino placere Deo, ut 
ex preescripto pontificis conveniant 
patres ad decernendum, eisque proinde 
Spiritum Sanctum assistere, ut per 
pontificem postea vel confirmantem 
vel emendantem eorum decreta, in- 
fallibiliter de veritate doceantur. 
Quod vero statuunt sub anathemate, 
faciunt qnidem hoe illi, ut quantum 
est in se, astringant hac ratione magis 
obligationem eam, quam sperant per 
pontificis futuram  confirmationem, 
robur habituram. Et vero Concilia 
olim nisi prius accepissent sedis 
apostolicee decretum, controversias 
fidei non definiebant, ut ostendit 
Turrecremata (Summ. de Eccl. cap. 
xxxiii.) Quod ipsum magno argu- 
mento est, verissimum id esse quod 
docemus, Concilii universalis decreta 
ante pontificis confirmationem non 
habere certitudinem infallibilem. — 
Gregor. de] Valentia [sic] respondet 
concedendo neutrum : [Commentar. 


Theolog.] in [Secund. Secund.] S. 
Thom. [Aquin.] tom. iii. Disp. i. [de 
fide, ] Q{uzest.] 1. [de objecto fidei, | 
Punet. vii. § 45. [00]. 321. D.] 

Ad tertium [dicendum, quod fir- 
mitas Conciliorum illis Christi verbis 
proprie non innititur...sed potius] 
exemplo primi concilii apostolici 
eorum firmitas nititur, [vel 4115 
Christi in Evangelio promissionibus 
apostolis suis proprie factis. |—Staple- 
ton. Relect. Controy. [Controv.] vi. 
&e. Q{ueest.] 111. A[rtic.] 4. [ Respons. ] 
ad. 3. [Op., tom. i. pp. 821, 822. ubi 
sup. p. 260. note °. | 

ἃ Kt Bellarminus dicit locum hune 
esse tertium e propriis. [His words 
are:] Tertius locus [est Act. xv. ubi 
primum concilium confidenter ait: 
Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis. 
Si autem illud concilium, ex quo 
formam acceperunt omnia alia con- 
cilia, asserit decreta sua esse decreta 
Spiritus Sancti, certe idem asserere 
possunt czetera legitima concilia, &e. 
—Bellarmin.] de Concil. [auctoritat.] 
ib: 1: icap:, 2.95) 17. νὴ, ζοτας “τὴν 
col. 55. A.] 

b [Sed contra est quod in primo 
concilio apostolico dicitur: Act. xv. 
Visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis. 
Ergo] conciliorum decreta sunt Spiri- 
tus Sancti oracula.—Stapleton. ibid. 
Sentent. Orthodox. i. [ut sup. p. 820. 
B. ] 


that the Councils are—especially those which do not imitate them. 


adds, that because “all other councils borrowed their form 
from this, therefore other lawful councils may affirm also 
that their decrees are the decrees of the Holy Ghost ;”° 
little considering therewhile, that it is one thing to borrow 
the form, and another thing to borrow the certainty and the 
infallibility, of a council. For suppose that after-councils 
did follow the form of that first council exactly in all circum- 
stances, yet I hope no advised man will say there is the like 
infallibility in other councils, where no man sat that was in- 
spired, as was in this, where all that sat as judges were 
inspired; or if any Jesuit will be so bold as to say it, he had 
need bring very good proof for it, and far better than any is 
brought yet. Now that all councils are not so infallible as 
was this of the Apostles, nor the causes handled in them as 
there they were, is manifest by one of their own, who tells 
us plainly, “That the Apostles in their council dealt very 
prudently ; did not precipitate their judgment, but weighed 
all things; for in matters of faith, and which touch the 
conscience, it is not enough to say Volumus et mandamus, ‘ We 
will and command.’ And thus the Apostles met together in 
simplicity and singleness, seeking nothing but God and the 
salvation of men. And what wonder if the Holy Ghost 
were present in such a council? Nos aliter: but ‘we meet 
otherwise,’ in great pomp; and seek ourselves, and promise 
ourselves, that we may do anything out of the plenitude of 
our power. And how can the Holy Ghost allow of such 
meetings ?”* And if not “allow” or approve the meetings, 


¢ Siillud concilium, ex quoformam magna pompa, nosque ipsos queri- 


acceperunt omnia alia concilia, asserit 
decreta sua esse decreta Spiritus Sancti, 
certe idem asserere possunt cetera 
legitima concilia, &c. — Bellarmin. 
ibid. [ut sup. note *.] 

4 Vide quam prudenter agunt, non 
precipitant sententiam, sed singula ex- 
pendunt. In rebus enim fidei et que 
conscientiam tangunt, non satis est 
dicere Volumus, mandamus. Vides 
igitur quomodo conveniunt Apostoli. 
Simpliciter conveniunt, nihil nisi 
Deum queerunt, et aliorum salutem 
expetunt, [denique omnia prudenter 
perpendunt.] Quid igitur mirum si 
in hoe concilio fuerit Spiritus Sane- 
tus? [Juxta promissum Domini, ubi 
duo vel tres congregati fuerint, Xe. ] 
Nos aliter convenimus, nempe, cum 


mus, atque nobis pollicemur nihil 
nobis non licere de plenitudine potes- 
tatis. Et quomodo Spiritus Sanctus 
ejusmodi conventus probare possit ?— 
Ferus in Act. xv. 7. [p. 180. ed. Colon. 
1567. — Joannis Feri Franciscani 
Opera omnia in Romano indice (Clem. 
VIII. an. 1595.) prohibita sunt, ex- 
ceptis annotationibus et commen- 
tariis in Matth. et Joann. Evangelia, 
et inJoannis Epist. 1. Rome recognitis 
et impressis. Possevin. Apparat. Sacr. 
p. 875. (quoted by Thorold, T. C. 
Laud’s Labyrinth, p. 254.) In a Por- 
tuguese Index Expurg.: sc. Index 
auctorum damnatz memorize, Ulys- 
sipp. 1624. p. 782. the Commentary 
on the Acts is expurgated. In the 
Index of Madrid, 1640. Index Libb. 


265 


Srorron 


XXXII. 


266 


All agree that the Church in general cannot err from 


Coxrerencs then certainly not concur to make every thing infallible 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


Consid. IV. 


Matt. xvi. 
18. 


that shall be concluded in them. 

8.—And for all the places together, weigh them with 
indifferency, and either they speak of the Church, including 
the Apostles, as all of them do—and then, all grant the 
voice of the Church is God’s voice, divine and infallible ;— 
or else they are general, unlimited, and appliable to private 
assemblies as well as General Councils, which none grant to 
be infallible but some mad enthusiasts ;—or else they are 
limited, not simply into “ all truth,” but “all necessary to 
salvation ;” in which I shall easily grant a General Council 
cannot err, suffering itself to be led by this Spirit of truth 
in the Scripture, and not taking upon it to lead both the 
Scripture and the Spirit. For, suppose these places, or any 
other, did promise assistance, even to infallibility, yet they 
granted it not to every General Council, but to the Catholic 
body of the Church itself; and if it be in the whole Church 
principally, then is it in a General Council but by conse- 
quent, as the council represents the whole. And that which 
belongs to a thing by consequent, doth not otherwise nor 
longer belong unto it than it consents and cleaves to that 
upon which it is a consequent. And therefore a General 
Council hath not this assistance, but as it keeps to the whole 
Church and spouse of Christ, whose it is to hear His word, 
and determine by it. And therefore if a General Council 
will go out of the Church’s way, it may easily go without 
the Church’s truth. 

1.—Fourthly, I consider, that all agree, That the Church in 
general can never err from the faith necessary to salvation ; 
no persecution, no temptation, no “gates of hell,’ whatsoever 
is meant by them, can ever so “ prevail against 10.) For all 
the members of the militant Church cannot err, either in 
the whole faith, or in any article of it; it is impossible. 
For if all might so err, there could be no union between 
them as members, and Christ the head; and no union 
between- head and members, no body; and so no Church; 
prohib. et expurg. de concilio su-  §. John’s Gospels,—S. John 1 Epist.— 
preme Senat. S. General. Inquisit. and 8. Paul to the Romans: Cetera 
Joannes Ferus, fraude sectariorum ejus opera, sectariis vitiata, prohib. 


vitiatus (p. 706.) is expurgated in the donee recognoscantur, (p. 712.) The 
Commentaries on 8. Matthew's and same in the Index of Madrid, 1667. ] 


necessary faith : not that a General Council cannot. 


which cannot be. But there is not the like consent, That 
General Councils cannot err.° And it seems strange to me, 
the fathers having to do with so many heretics, and so many 
of them opposing Church authority, that in the condemna- 
tion of those heretics, this proposition, even in terms, ‘ A 
General Council cannot err,” should not be found in any 
one of them, that I can yet see. Now suppose it were true, 
that no General Council had erred in any matter of moment 
to this day—which will not be found true—yet this would 
not have followed, That it is therefore infallible, and 
cannot err. I have no time to descend into particulars ; 
therefore to the general, still. S. Augustine’ puts a dif- 
ference between the rules of Scripture, and the definitions 
of men. This difference is, Preponitur Scriptura, “ That 
the Scripture hath the prerogative.” That prerogative is, 
“That whatsoever is found written in Scripture, may neither 
be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right. But 
the letters of bishops may not only be disputed, but cor- 
rected, by bishops that are more learned and wise than they, 
or by National Councils; and National Councils, by Plenary 
or General; and even Plenary Councils themselves may be 


amended, the former by the latter. 


e [Hee est ecclesia symbolica, | 
ecclesia [Christi inquam] catholica 
[et apostolica, mater credentium popu- 
lorum, que] fidem habet indefectibi- 
lem, [secundum promissum Christi, 
&e.|... Nee utique particularis illa 
Romana, sed ] universalis ecclesia, non 
quidem in generali synodo congregata, 
quam aliquoties errasse percepimus, 
&c. — [Thom.] Waldens. Doctrinal. 
Fidei, [tom. i.] lib. ii. Artic. ii. 
cap. xix. § 1., Et § 38. No.4. [fol. xcix. 
&e. ubi sup. p. 250. note Ἀ.] 

f [Vos certe nobis objicere soletis 
Cypriani literas, Cypriani sententiam, 
Cypriani concilium: cur auctoritatem 
Cypriani pro vestro schismate assumi- 
tis, et ejus exemplum pro ecclesiz 
pace respuitis? Quis autem nesciat 
sanctam Scripturam canonicam, tam 
veteris quam novi Testamenti, certis 
suis terminis contineri, eamque omni- 
bus posterioribus episcoporum literis 
ita preponi, ut de illa omnino 
dubitari et disceptari non possit, 
utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, 
quidquid in ea scriptum esse con- 


%g Τί seems it was no 


stiterit: episcoporum autem literas 
quee post confirmatum canonem vel 
seriptz sunt vel scribuntur, et per 
sermonem forte sapientiorem cujus- 
libet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum 
episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem 
doctioremque prudentiam, et per 
concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis 
forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa 
concilia que per singulas regiones vel 
provincias fiunt, plenariorum concilio- 
rum auctoritati quee fiunt ex universo 
orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus 
cedere: ipsaque plenaria seepe priora 
posterioribus emendari; cum aliquo 
experimento rerum aperitur quod 
clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod 
latebat; sine ullo typho’ sacrilege 
superbizw, sine ulla inflata cervice 
arrogantie, sine ulla contentione 
lividee invidize, cum sancta humilitate, 
cum pace catholica, cum caritate 
Christiana?]—S. Augustin. de Bap- 
tismo contra Donatist. lib. ii. cap. 3. 
[Op., tom. ix. col. 98. A.] 

& ipsaque plenaria seepe priora a pos- 
terioribus emendari.—[ut sup. note '| 


267 


SECTION 


XXXII. 


268 


Attempts to explain away aremarkable passage of S. Augustine. 


Conrerence news with S. Augustine, that a General Council might err ; 


WITH 
Fisumr. 


and therefore inferior to the Scripture, which may neither 
be doubted nor disputed where it affirms. And if it be so 
with the “ definition” of a council too, as Stapleton™ would 
have it, that that may neither be doubted nor disputed, 
where is then the Scripture’s prerogative ? 

2.—I know there is much shifting about this place, but 
it cannot be wrastled off. Stapleton says first, “ That 
S. Augustine speaks of the rules of manners and disci- 
pline.”! And this is Bellarmine’s last shift. Both are out, 
and Bellarmine in a contradiction. Bellarmine in a contra- 
diction ; for first he tells us, “General Councils cannot err 
in precepts of manners ;”’* and then, to turn off S. Augus- 
tine in this place, he tells us, “That if S. Augustine doth 
not speak of matter of fact, but of right, and of universal 
questions of right, then he is to be understood ! of precepts 
of manners, not of points of faith:” where he hath first 
run himself upon a contradiction; and then we have gained 
this ground upon him, That either his answer is nothing; 
or else, against his own state of the question, “A General 
Council can err in precepts of manners.” So, belike, when 
Bellarmine is at a shift, a General Council can, and cannot, 
err in precepts of manners. And both are out; for the 
whole dispute of S. Augustine is against the error of 
S. Cyprian, followed by the Donatists, which was an error 
in faith—namely: “That true baptism could not be given 


h Est [autem] ecclesiz [testificantis 
et docentis] vox [sie ab omnibus 
fidelibus audienda,| ut non de ea 
judicemus rectene an secus docuerit, 
[sed satis nobis sit quod ecclesia hoe 
vel illud docuerit.]—So Stapleton, 
Relect. Controy. [Controv.] iv. [de 
potestate ecclesize in se,} Qfueest. | i. 
A[rtic.] 1. [Respons. ad 7. Op., 
tom. i. p. 731. B.] 

* Ad primum [ergo dicendum, quod 
Augustinus loquitur] de regulis mo- 
rum ac discipline, [que ad factum 
pertinent, &c..... Sed si etiam de 
causa fidei loquatur ....sensus est 
quod posteriora concilia emendant, id 
est, perfectius explicant fidem in 
semine antique doctrine latentem, 
quam priora, &c.|—Stapleton. Relect. 
Controy. [Controy.] vi. Q[ueest.] iii. 


A[rtic.] 4. [Respons.] ad 1. [Op., 
tom. i. p. 821. C.] 

k (Catholici vero omnes constanter 
docent, Concilia generalia a summo 
pontifice confirmata, errare non posse, 
nec in fide explicanda, nee in traden- 
dis morum preceptis toti ecclesiz 
communibus.—Bellarmin.] de Concil. 
{auctoritat.] lib. 11. cap. 2. in init. 
[§. 1. Op., tom. ii. col. 53. D.] 

' Potest etiam [tertio dici, si con- 
tendant adversarii eum loqui de 
universalibus queestionibus, Concilia 
priora emendari per posteriora, quoad 
preecepta morum, non quoad dogmata 
fidei; preecepta enim mutantur juxta 
temporum, locorum, et personarum 
mutationes, &¢c.—Bellarmin.] ibid. 
cap. 7. [ὃ 8. Op., tom. ii. col. 62. B.] 


He plainly meant that a Plenary Council might err. 


by heretics, and such as were out of the Church.” And the 
proof which Stapleton and Bellarmine draw out of the 
subsequent words, “ When by any experiment of things, 
that which was shut is opened,’™ is too weak. For experi- 
ment there is not, of fact; nor are the words, Conclusum est, 
as if it were of arule of discipline concluded, as Stapleton 
cites them, but a farther experiment or proof of the 
question in hand, and pertaining to faith, which was then 
shut up, and, as 8. Augustine after speaks, “wrapped up in 
cloudy darkness.” ἢ 

3.—Next, Stapleton will have it, That if S. Augustine 
do speak of a cause of faith, then his meaning is, that later 
General Councils can mend, that is, “ explicate more per- 
fectly, that faith which lay hid in the seed of ancient doc- 
trine.’° He makes instance, That about the divinity of 
Christ, the council of Ephesus explicated the first of Nice ; 
Chalcedon, both of them; Constance,’ Chalcedon. 
then concludes: “In all which things, none of” (these) 


269 


SEroTIoN 


XXXIII. 


And ! [Constan- 
tinople. .. 


ditt. 


“eouncils taught that which was erroneous.” ? An excellent es 


conclusion! These councils, and these in this thing, taught 
no error, and were only explained; Therefore no council can 
err in any matter of faith ;—or, Therefore S. Augustine 
speaks not of an emendation of error, but of an explanation 
of sense. Whereas every eye sees neither of these can follow. 

4.—Now that S. Augustine meant plainly, That even a 
Plenary Council might err, and that “often,” 4 (for that is 
his word,) and that in matter of faith, and might and ought 
so to be amended in a later council, I think will thus appear. 
First, his word is, emendari, “to be amended;” which 
properly supposes for error and faultiness, not explanation. 


m eum aliquo experimento rerum 
aperitur quod clausum erat. —l[ut 
sup. note f. | 

» (Quomodo enim potuit ista res 
tantis altercationum] nebulis involuta, 
fad plenarii concilii luculentam illus- 
trationem confirmationemque  per- 
duci, &c.—S. Augustin. ubi sup. p. 
267. note£] ibid. cap. 4. [col. 98. 
ΒΡ] 


© Sensus est, quod posteriora con- 
cilia emendant, id est, perfectius 
explicant fidem in semine antique 
doctrine latentem, &c.—Stapleton. 


Relect. Controy. [Controv.] vi. Q[ueest. | 
iii. A[rt.] 4. [ubi sup. p. 268. note ᾿.] 

P? [Hee quippe omnia posterius 
definita, per posteriora Concilia clarius 
cognoscebantur, quod in posterioribus 
tamen virtute latebat.] Qua in re 
nihil erroneum ullum concilium do- 
cuit, [sed posteriora perfectius quam 
priora, propter novas hzereses insur- 
gentes, quibus quasi novis morbis 
noya definitionum remedia aptanda 
fuerant.—Stapleton. ibid. p. 821. D.] 

4 sepe. —[S. Augustin. ubi sup. 
note f.] 


270 


S. Augustine’s language on the possibility of Councils erring 


Conrrrence And 8. Augustine needed not to go to a word of such a 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


forced’ sense; nor sure would, especially in a disputation 
against adversaries. Next, 8S. Augustine’s dispute is against 
S. Cyprian and the council held at Carthage about Baptism 
by Heretics ; in which point that National Council erred, as 
now all agree. And 8S. Augustine’s deduction goes on: 
Scripture cannot be other than right; that is the preroga- 
tive of it: but bishops may, and be “reprehended § for it, if 
peradventure they err from the truth,’* and that either by 
“more learned bishops,” or “ by Provincial Councils.” Here 
reprehension, and that for deviation from the truth, is, I hope, 
“emendation” properly, and not “explanation” only. Then 
Provincial Councils, they must “ yield ”" to General ; and to 
yield is not in case of explanation only. Then it follows, 
that even “ Plenary Councils themselves may be amended, 
the former by the later;” still retamimg that which went 
before, “if peradventure they erred, or made deviation from 
the truth.” And if this be not so, I would fain know why, 
in one and the same tenor of words, in one and the same 
continuing argument and deduction of S. Augustine, re- 
prehendi should be in proper sense, and ὦ veritate deviatum 
in proper sense, and cedere in proper sense, and only 
emendari should not be proper, but stand for an “ explana- 
tion?” If you say the reason is, because the former words 
are applied to men and National Councils, both which may 
err, but this last to General Councils, which cannot err, 
this is most miserable begging of the principle and thing in 
question. 

5.—Again: S. Augustine concludes there, That the 
General Council preceding may be amended by General 


τ Not used, but either for corrigere 
or auferre; and so 5. Augustine 
uses the word: [Sed aliud est quod 
docemus, aliud quod sustinemus, aliud 
quod precipere jubemur, aliud quod 
emendare pracipimur, et donec 
emendemus, tolerare compellimur.— 
S. Augustin.] contra Faustum [Mani- 
cheeum,] lib. xx. cap. 21. [Op., tom. 
viii. col. 348. A.|—And Bellarmine, 
though he interpret it in matter of 
fact, yet equals the word with correwit, 
[in these words :] Respondeo, queestio- 
nem [fuisse de facto... .Quia vero 


Johannes postea re melius investigata 
. ++ correxit errorem concilii prioris, 
juxta regulam Augustini, qui dicit: 
Concilia priora aliquando emendari, 
&c. — Bellarmin.] de Concil. [aucto- 
ritat. | lib. ii. cap. 8. ὃ 72. [Op. tom. 
ii. col. 78. B.] 

’ reprehendi. —[S. Augustin. ubi 
sup. note f.] 

τ si quid in eis forte a veritate de- 
viatum est.—(S. Augustin. ubi sup. 
note f.] 

ἃ cedere.—[S. Augustin. ubi sup. 
note 41 


vindicated from erroneous explanations and abatements. 


Councils that follow, “when that is known which lay hid 
before.”* Not, as Stapleton would have it, “lay hid as in the 
seed of ancient doctrine” only, and so needed nothing but 
explanation ; but hid in some darkness or ambiguity, which 
led the former into error and mistaking, as appears. For 
S. Augustine “would have this amendment made without 
sacrilegious pride,’’—doubtless, of sulting upon the former 
council that was to be amended—“and without swelling 
arrogancy,”’—sure, against the weakness in the former coun- 
cil—“and without contention of envy,’—which uses to 
accompany man’s frailty, where his or his friend’s error is 
to be amended by the later council—“ and in holy humility, 
in Catholic peace, in Christian charity,’—no question, that 
a schism be not made to tear the Church, (as here the 
Donatists did,) while one council goes to reform the lapse of 
another, if any be. Now to what end should this learned 
father be so zealous, in this work, this highest work that I 
know in the Church — reviewing and surveying General 
Councils—to keep off “pride,” and “arrogance,” and “envy,” 
and to keep all in “ humility,” “peace,” and “ charity,’—if, 
after all this noise, he thought later councils might do 
nothing but “amend,” that is, “ explain,” the former ? 
6.—That shift which Bellarmine’ adds to these two of 
Stapleton is poorest of all—namely, “ That 5. Augustine 
speaks of unlawful councils; and it is no question but 
they may be amended, as the second Ephesine was at 
Chalcedon.” For this answer hath no foundation but a 
“peradventure ;”? nor durst Bellarmine rest uponit. And 
most manifest it is, that S. Augustine speaks of councils 
in general, that they may err, and be amended in doctrine 
of faith ; and in case they be not amended, that then they 
be condemned and rejected by the Church, as this of 
Ephesus and divers others were. And as for that mere 
trick of the pope’s “instruction, approbation, or confirma- 
tion,” 5 to preserve it from error, or ratify it that it hath not 


* cum cognoscitur quod latebat. quod in Chalcedonensi emendatum 
—{S. Augustin. ubi sup. note "7 est.|—Bellarmin. de Concil. [aucto- 
y Respondeo primo, forte [loqui  ritat.] lib. ii. cap. 7. ὃ 7. [Op., tom. ii. 
Augustinum de conciliis illegitimis, col. 62. B.] 
quee per posteriora legitima emendan- z Sect. xxvi. No. 1. [ubi sup. p. 214.] 
tur, ut accidit Concil. Ephesino II. 


271 


SEcTION 


XXXII. 


272 


Conrerence erred, the most ancient Church knew it not. 


WITH 


FISHER. 


Consid. Y. 


One General Council erring to be corrected by another. 


He had his 
suffrage, as other great patriarchs had; and his vote was 
highly esteemed, not only for his place, but for worth too, 
as popes were then. But that the whole council depended 
upon him and his confirmation, was then unknown, and I 
verily think at this day, not believed, by the wise and learned 
of his adhereuts. 

1.—Fifthly, it must be considered, If a General Council 
may err, who shall judge it? §S. Augustine is at priora a 
posterioribus,* Nothing, sure, that is less than a General 
Council.’ “ Why, but this yet lays all open to uncertainties, 
and makes way for a whirlwind of a private spirit to ruffle 
the Church.” No, neither of these. First, All is not open 
to uncertainties: for General Councils, lawfully called and 
ordered, and lawfully proceeding, are a great and an awful 
representation, and cannot err in matters of faith, keeping 
themselves to God’s rule, and not attempting to make a new 
of their own; and are with all submission to be observed by 
every Christian, where Scripture or evident demonstration 
come not against them. Nor doth it make way for the 
whirlwind of a private spirit: for private spirits are too 
giddy to rest upon Scripture, and too heady and shallow to 
be acquainted with demonstrative arguments. And it were 
happy for the Church if she might never be troubled with 
private spirits till they brought such arguments. I know 
this is hotly objected against Hooker®: the author“ calls 


8 [S. Augustin. ubi sup. p. 267. 
note £.] 
> Sect. xxxii. No. 5. [ubi sup. p. 


« (“Are those reasons demonstra- 
tive, are they necessary, or but mere 
probabilities only? An argument ne- 
cessary and demonstrative is such, as 
being proposed unto any man and 
understood, the mind cannot choose 
but inwardly assent. Any one such 
reason dischargeth, I grant, the con- 
science, and setteth it at full liberty. 
For the public approbation given by 
the body of this whole Church unto 
those things which are established, 
doth make it but probable that they 
are good. And therefore unto a ne- 
cessary proof that they are not good, 
it must give place. But if the skil- 
fullest amongst you can show that all 


the books ye have hitherto written be 
able to afford any one argument of 
this nature, let the instance be given.” 
—Hooker,] Preface [to Eccl. Polity, 
ch. vi. 6.] p. 29. [ Works, vol. i. p. 212. 
ed. Keble.] 

4 Pialogus dictus, Deus et Rex. 
[The present Editor has not been able 
to procure a sight of this rare volume. 
It was written (see Alegambe, Scrip- 
tores Societatis Jesu) by John Floyd, a 
Jesuit, commonly called, as Wood 
states, Father Fludd, and was pub- 
lished at 8S. Omer’s (Audomari,) 1620. 
It was translated into English by 
Thomas More, also a Jesuit, and pub- 
lished at Cologne, 1620. Thomas 
More was the brother of Henry More, 
the historian of the English Jesuits, 
and a member of one of the younger 
branches of Chancellor Sir T. More’s 


Supremacy of demonstration doesnot imply that of privatejudgment. 273 


him a “ wise Protestant,” © yet turns thus upon him: “Ifa _ Szcrton 
Council must yield to a demonstrative proof, who shall judge AE 
whether the argument that is brought be a demonstration 
or not? For every man that will kick against the Church, 
will say the Scripture he urges is evident, and his reason a 
demonstration. And what is this but to leave all to the 
wildness of a private spirit?” Can any ingenuous man 
read this passage in Hooker and dream of a “ private spirit?” 
For to the question, ‘Who shall judge?” Hooker answers 
as if it had been then made: “ An argument necessary and 
demonstrative, is such,” saith he, “ as, bemg proposed to any 
man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly 
assent unto it.’! So it is not enough to think or say it is 
* demonstrative.” The light, then, of a “demonstrative ar- 
gument” is the evidence which itself hath in itself to all that 
understand it. Well; but because all understand it not, if 
a quarrel be made, who shall decide it? No question but a 
“ General Council,’ not a private spirit: first, in the intent 
of the author; for Hooker in all that discourse makes the 
“sentence of the Council” binding, and therefore that is 
made ‘‘judge,” not a private spint. And then for the “judge 


family, and settled in Cambridgeshire. 
This Thomas More died at Ghent, 
1623, zt. 37, and is not to be con- 
founded with Thomas More who died 
at Rome, 1625, eet. 59, the great-grand- 
son of Sir Thomas More, who con- 
ducted the affairs of the English 
Jesuits at Rome. The “ Life of Sir 
Thomas More” is sometimes attributed 
to this latter Thomas More, but it was 
written by his younger and only sur- 
viving brother, Christopher Cresacre 
More. Consequently these, Thomas 
and Christopher, were cousins of 
Thomas More, the translator of Floyd. 
—Another work is extant under the 
title, Deus et Rex, sive dialogus quo 
demonstratur serenissimum JD. nos- 
trum Jacobum Regem, immediate sub 
Deo constitutum in regnis suis, jus- 
tissime sibi vindicare quicquid in jura- 
mento fidelitatis requiritur. Canta- 
brigiz, &c. 1615. Another edition 
was printed at London of the same 
date. A translation, 12mo. appeared, 
London, 1616: and a reprint was 
issued, London, 1663. This work is 
of a character opposite to that of 
Floyd.] 
VOL. I1.—-LAUD. 


© Cordatus Protestans. [Ibid. ] 

f (Hooker, ] Pref. p.29.[ubisup. note ®. ] 
And therefore A. C. is much to blame, 
after all this, to talk of a “ pretext of 
seeming evident Scripture, or demon- 
stration ;” as he doth, p. 59. 

& Sect. xxxii. No. 2. [ubi sup. p. 247.] 

h (“ For if God be not the author 
of confusion, but of peace, then can He 
not be the author of our refusal, but 
of our contentment, to stand unto some 
definitive sentence... When the Coun- 
cil of Jerusalem had given their defi- 
nitive sentence, all controversy was at 
anend. Things were disputed before 
they came to be determined: men 
afterwards were not to dispute any 
longer, but to obey... As for the 
orders which are established, sith 
equity and reason, the law of nature, 
God and man, do all favour that which 
is in being, till orderly judgment of 
decision be given against it, it is but 
justice to exact of you, and perverse- 
ness in you it should be to deny, 
thereunto your willing obedience.”— 
Hooker,| Preface [&c., ch. vi. 3—5. 
Works, vol. i. pp. 209—211.] 


T 


274 


Possibility of error in a Council admitted by Bellarmine. 


Conrrrence Of the argument,” it is as pla: for if it be evident to any 


WITH 
FISHER. 


man, then to so many learned men as are in a Council, doubt- 
less: and if they cannot but assent, it is hard to think them 
so impious that they will define against it. And if that which 
is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a 
grave assembly, it is probable it is no “ demonstration,” and 
the producers of it ought to rest, and not to trouble the 
Church. 

2.—Nor is this Hooker’s alone, nor is it newly thought 
on by us. It is a ground in nature, which grace doth ever 
set right, never undermine. And S. Augustine! hath it twice 
in one chapter, that S.Cyprian and that Council at Carthage 
would have presently yielded to “any one that would demon- 
strate truth.’* Nay, it is a rule with him, “Consent of 
nations, authority confirmed by miracles and antiquity, 
S. Peter’s chair, and succession from it, motives to keep him 
in the Catholic Church, must not hold him against demon- 
stration of truth ;! which if it be so clearly demonstrated that 
it cannot come into doubt, it is to be preferred before all 
those things by which a man is held in the Catholic Church.” ™ 
Therefore, “an evident scripture, or demonstration of truth,” 
must take place everywhere; but where these cannot be had, 
there must be submission to authority. 


3.—And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this? 


i [Quapropter Sanctus Cyprianus, 
tanto excelsior, quanto humilior... 
satis ostendit facillime se correcturum 
fuisse sententiam suam, si quis ei de- 
monstraret baptismum Christi sic dari 
posse ab eis qui foras exierunt, ὅσ. 
—S. Augustin.] de Baptism. contra 
Donatist. lib. ii. cap. 4. [Op., tom. ix. 
col. 98. D.] 

k [Quia profecto ] uni verum dicenti, 
et demonstranti [posset facillime con- 
sentire tam sancta anima, tam pacata, 
&e.—Ibid. F.] 

1 (In catholica enim Ecclesia... 
multa sunt alia que in ejus gremio 
me justissime teneant. Tenet con- 
sensio populorum atque gentium: 
tenet auctoritas miraculis inchoata, 
spe nutrita, caritate aucta, vetustate 
firmata: tenet ab ipsa sede Petri 
apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas post 
resurrectionem Dominus commenda- 
vit, usque ad preesentem episcopatum 
successio sacerdotum : tenet postremo 


For, 


ipsum Catholicee nomen, quod non 
sine causa inter tam multas hereses 
sic ista ecclesia sola obtenuit, ut cum 
omnes heeretici se catholicos dici 
velint, queerenti tamen peregrino ali- 
cui, ubi ad Catholicam conveniatur 
nullus hereticorum vel _basilicam 
suam vel domum audeat ostendere.— 
S. Augustin.] contra [Epistolam Ma- 
nichzi, quam vocant| Fundamenti, 
cap. iv. [Op., tom. viii. col. 153. B.] 

m [Apud yos autem, ubi nihil ho- 
rum est quod me invitet ac teneat, 
sola personat veritatis pollicitatio :] 
que quidem si tam manifesta mon- 
stratur, ut in dubium venire non 
possit, preeponenda est omnibus illis 
rebus, quibus in Catholica teneor.. . 
[Quod] si [forte] in Evangelio aliquid 
apertissimum [de Manichei aposto- 
latu invenire potueris, infirmabis 
mihi Catholicorum auctoritatem,&¢c.— 
S. Augustin.] ibid. capp. iv. [v. col. 153. 
D. 154. C.] 


The definitions of the Church not so infallible as those of Scripture. 275 
speaking of Councils, he delivers this proposition: “That Srocrroy 
inferiors may not judge whether their superiors” (and that ane 
in a Council) “do proceed Jawfully, or not.” But then, having 
bethought himself, that inferiors at all times and in all 
causes are not to be cast off, he adds this exception, ‘‘ unless 
it manifestly appear that an intolerable error be com- 
mitted.”" So then if such an error be, and be manifest, 
inferiors may do their duty, and a Council must yield, unless 
you will accuse Bellarmine, too, of leaning to a private 
spirit ; for neither doth he express who shall judge whether 
the “error be intolerable.” 

4.—This will not down with you, but the definition of a 
General Council is and must be “infallible.” Your fellows 
tell us, and you can affirm no more, “ That the voice of the 
Church determining in Council is not human, but divine.” ° 
That is well; “divine,” then sure “ infallible :” yea, but the 
proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it. 
It is not divine simply, but “in a manner? divine.” Why, 
but then, sure, not “ infallible,” because it may speak loudest 
in that manner in which it is not divine. Nay more: “'The 
Church, forsooth, is an infallible foundation of faith, in a higher 
kind than the Scripture: for the Scripture is but a founda- 
tion in testimony, and matter to be believed ; but the Church 
as the efficient cause of faith, and in some sort the very 





formal,’ 4 


n Alii dicunt, Concilium [illud, (se. 
Judeorum contra Jesum Christum) 
errasse, quia non processit secundum 
morem legitimi judicii: sed tumultu- 
aria conspiratione, subornatis falsis 
testibus, Christum damnavit... Quia 
tamen non est inferiorum judicare, 
an superiores legitime procedant, 
necne,| nisi manifestissime constet 
intolerabilem errorem committi ; [et 
credibile est, Deum non permissurum, 
ut Concilia, quibus summus pontifex 
preesidet, non legitime procedant.— 
Bellarmin.] de Concil. [auctoritat.] 
lib. ii. cap. 8. ὃ 8. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
64. B.] 

°{ Vox et determinatio Hcclesize est 
suo modo divina.|—Stapleton. Relect. 
[Controv.] Controv. iv. [de potestat. 
Kcclesiz in se,] Q[ueest.] 3. A[rtic]. 1. 
{in tit. Op., tom. i. p. 750. C. ubi sup. 
p. 41. note *.] 

P suo modo divina.—{Stapleton.] 


Is not this blasphemy ? 


Doth not this knock 


1014. And so A.C. too, who hath 
opened his mouth very wide to prove 
the succession of pastors in the Church 
to be of divine and infallible authority, 
yet in the close is forced to add, “at 
least in some sort,” p. 51. 

4 [Scripturam autem fundamen- 
tum et columnam fidei fatemur in suo 
genere esse, scilicet in genere testimo- 
niorum, et in materia credendorum : 
quo sensu unus primarius articulus est 
fundamentum multorum, ut de Petri 
confessione et fide incarnati Filii Dei 
scripsit Hilarius de Trinit. lib. vi.: 
sed non est solum fundamentum, Ec- 
clesia enim fundamentum et columna 
alia est, (1 Tim. iii. 15.)] in altiori ge- 
nere, videlicet, in genere cause efficien- 
tis, atque adeo aliqua ex parte formalis. 
—(Stapleton.]ibid. Q[uzest.]1. A[rtic.] 
3. [in fin. Respons. ad Arg. 13. Op., 
tom. i, p. 744. B ] 


p 2 


276 


Councils not infallible either in means or conclusion. 


Conrerence against all evidence of truth, and his own grounds that says 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


Consid. VI. 





it? Against all evidence of truth: for in all ages, all men 
that once admitted the Scripture to be the word of God, as 
all Christians do, do with the same breath grant it most 
undoubted and infallible. But all men have not so judged 
of the Church’s definitions, though they have in greatest 
obedience submitted to them. And against his own grounds 
that says it: for the Scripture is absolutely, and every way, 
divine; the Church’s definition is but suo modo, “in a sort 
or manner,” divine. But that which is but in a sort, can 
never be a foundation in a higher degree than that which 
is absolute and every way such: therefore neither can the 
definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture, 
much less in altiori genere, “in a higher kind,” than the 
Scripture. But because, when all other things fail, you fly 
to this, That the Church’s definition in a General Council is 
by inspiration, and so divine and infallible, my haste shall 
not carry me from a little consideration of that too. 

1.—Sixthly, then, if the definition of a General Coun- 
cil be infallible, then the infallibility of it is either in the 
conclusion, and in the means that prove it ; or in the conclu- 
sion, not the means; or in the means, not the conclusion. 
But it is infallible in none of these. Not in the first—the 
conclusion and the means: for there are divers deliberations 
in General Councils, where the conclusion is catholic, but 
the means by which they prove it not infallible. Not in the 
second—the conclusion and not the means: for the conclu- 
sion must follow the nature of the premises or principles out 
of which it is deduced ; therefore if those which the Council 
uses be sometimes uncertain, as is proved before, the conclu- 
sion cannot be infallible. Not in the third—the means and 
not the conclusion : for that cannot but be true and neces- 
sary, if the means be so. And this I am sure you will never 
grant ; because if you should, you must deny the infallibility 
which you seek to establish. 

2.—To this—for I confess the argument is old, but can 
never be worn out, nor shifted off—your great master,’ 


τ [Responde, Ecclesiz infallibilita- [Controv.] Controv. iv. Q[uest.] 2. 
tem secundo modo fieri, nempe circa [Respons.] ad Arg. 11. [Op., tom. i. 
conclusiones tantum, et non semper p. 750. A.] 
cirea media, &c.—Stapleton.] Relect. 


Stapleton’s view that Councils are infallible in definitions not in means. 277 


Stapleton, who is miserably hampered in it,—and indeed 50. Sxcrron 
are you all—answers, that the infallibility of a Council is in 2S 
the second course, that is, “it is infallible in the conclusion, 
though it be uncertain and fallible in the means and proof 
of it.’ * How comes this to pass? It is a thing altogether 
unknown in nature and art too, that fallible principles can, 
either father or mother, beget or bring forth an infallible 
conclusion. 

3.—Well, that is granted in nature, and in all argu- 
mentation, that causes knowledge; but we shall have 
reasons for it: “ First, because the Church is discursive, 
and uses the weights and moments of reason in the means ; 
but is prophetical, and depends upon immediate revelation 
from the Spirit of God in delivering the conclusion.”* It is 
but the making of this appear, and all controversy is at an 
end. Well, I will not discourse here, To what end there is 
any use of means, if the conclusion be prophetical, which 
yet is justly urged ; for no good cause can be assigned of it. 
If it be prophetical in the conclusion—I speak still of the 
present Church ; for that which included the Apostles, which 
had the spirit of prophecy and immediate revelation, was 
ever prophetic in the definition, but then that was infallible 
in the means too—then, since it delivers the conclusion not 
according to nature and art, that is, out of principles which 
can bear it, there must be some supernatural authority 
which must deliver this truth: that, say I, must be the 
Scripture. For if you fly to immediate revelation now, the 
enthusiasm must be yours. But the Scriptures, which are 
brought in the very exposition of all the primitive Church, 
neither say it nor enforce it. Therefore Scripture warrants 
not your prophecy in the conclusion ; and I know no other 


s And herein I must needs com- 
mend your wisdom. For you have had 
many popes so ignorant, grossly igno- 
rant, as that they have been no way 
able to sift and examine the means. 
And therefore you do most advisedly 
make them infallible in the conclusion 
without the means. [ Vide infra, ] Sect. 
xxxix. No. 8. 

t (Quarto notabimus, quod Ecclesia 
nihilominus in conclusione fidei sem- 
per est certissima et infallibilis. 


Ratio est, quia ejus doctrina nec sim- 
pliciter est prophetica .... nec sim- 
pliciter discursiva, et solis vel rati- 
onum momentis vel humanis docu- 
mentis utitur, quia ex Deo loquitur... 
sed ejus doctrina est in mediis discur- 
siva... in ipsa autem conclusione est 
prophetica et divina... Est igitur in 
ipsa doctrina infallibilis, etsi in forma 
et ratione docendi non ita.—Staple- 
ton.] ibid. Q[uest.] 2. Not{abile] 4. 
[p. 747. C.] 


Prophetical power a gift, not acquired by means. 


Conrerence thing that can warrant it. If you think the tradition of the 
Purr, Church can, make the world beholding to you. Produce 
any Father of the Church that says, This is an universal tra- 

dition of the Church, That her definitions in a General Coun- 

cil are prophetical, and by immediate revelation. Produce 

any one Father that says it of his own authority, that he 

thinks so. Nay, make it appear that ever any prophet, in 

that which he delivered from God as infallible truth, was 

ever discursive at all in the means. Nay, make it but pro- 

bable in the ordmary course of prophecy—and I hope you 

go no higher, nor will I offer at God’s absolute power—that 

that which is discursive in the means can be prophetic in 

the conclusion, and you shall be my great Apollo for ever." 

In the mean time I have learned this from yours, “ That all 
prophecy is by vision, inspiration,” &c. ;* and that no vision 

admits discourse ; that all prophecy is an illumination, not 

always present, but when “the word of the Lord came to 
them,” and that was not by discourse. And yet you say 

again, “ That this prophetic infallibility of the Church is not 

gotten without study and industry.”* You should do well 

to tell us too why God would put His Church to study for 

the spirit of prophecy, which never any particular prophet 

‘ [shall not was put unto. And whosoever shall study for it shall’ do it 


.- male, - 


Editt. in vain, since prophecy is a gift,* and can never be an ac- 
ee quired habit. And there is somewhat in it, that Bellarmine, 


1 Cor. xii, In all his dispute for the authority of General Councils, dares 
τ not come at this rock. He prefers the conclusion and the 
canon, before the acts and deliberations, of Councils,” and so 


«(Dic quibus in terris, et eris mihi 
magnus Apollo, &e. 
Virg. Bucol. 111. 104. ] 

x [Ad tertium dicendum, quod, in 
statu prime conditionis non erat audi- 
tus ab homine exterius loquente, sed } 
a Deo interius inspirante: [sicut et] 
prophetze audiebant, [secundum illud 
Ps. Ixxxiv. Audiam quid loquatur 
in me Dominus Deus.]|—S. Thom. 
{Aquin. Summ.] Secund. Secund. 
Q[ueest.]v. A[rtic]. 1. [Respons.] ad 3. 

y “The word of the Lord came unto 
me,” is common in the Prophets. 

z {Responde, hane infallibilitatem 
docentis Ecclesize non sine studio et 
industria comparari. . . quia Deus, qui 
disponit omnia suaviter, dans ipsum 


finem, dat etiam media ad finem ne- 
cessaria. |—Stapleton. Relect. [Con- 
τον. Controy. iv. Queest. 2. p. 473. 
[Respons. ad Arg. 10. Op., tom. i. 
p. 749. D.]J 

« Propheticam revelationem nullo 
pacto haberi posse, vel ope nature, 
vel studio, contra Avicennam, Alga- 
zalem, A verroem, {Rabbi Mosen Aigyp- 
tium, Narbonensem, et alios.—Joan.] 
Fran. Picus [Mirandula, de Rerum] 
prenot{ione, lib.] ii. cap. 4. [in tit. 
apud Op., Joann. Pic. Mirandule, 
tom. ii. p. 281. ed. Basil. 1496. ] 

Ὁ (Credimus enim nullum esse 
verbum in Scriptura frustra, aut non 
recte positum, at in conciliis maxima 
pars actorum ad fidem non pertinet. 


Decisions of the Church subjects both of faith and of knowledge. 


do we; but I do not remember that ever he speaks out, 
That the conclusion is delivered by prophecy or revelation. 
Sure, he sounded the shore, and found danger here. He did 
sound it: for a little before, he speaks plainly would his 
bad cause let him be constant,—“ Councils do deduce their 
conclusions ” ‘“—What, from inspiration ? No: but—“ out of 
the word of God, and that per ratiocinationem, ‘ by argumen- 
tation” ”’ Neither have they, nor do they write, any imme- 
diate revelations. 

4.—The second reason why Stapleton will have it prophetic 
in the conclusion, is, “ Because that which is determined by 
the Church is matter of faith, not of knowledge: and that 
therefore the Church proposing it to be believed, though it 
use means, yet it stands not upon art, or means, or argument, 
but the revelation of the Holy Ghost: else, when we embrace 
the conclusion proposed, it should not be an assent of faith, 
but a habit of knowledge.”¢ This, for the first part—That 
the Church uses the means, but follows them not—is all one 
in substance with the former reason. And for the later 
part, That then our admitting the decree of a Council would 
be no “assent of faith,’ but an “habit of knowledge,’ what 
great inconvenience is there, if it be granted? For I think 
it is undoubted truth, that one and the same conclusion may 
be faith to the believer that cannot prove, and knowledge to 
the learned that can. And S8. Augustine, I am sure, in 
regard of one and the same thing, even this, the very wisdom 
of the Church in her doctrine,’ ascribes “ understanding” 


Non enim sunt de fide disputationes, Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctoritat.] 


quee preetermittuntur, neque rationes 
que adduntur, neque ea que ad expli- 
candum et illustrandum adferuntur, 
sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta, et 
ea non omnia, sed tantum que pro- 
ponuntur tanquam de fide ... Denique 
in ipsis decretis de fide, non verba, 
sed sensus tantum ad fidem pertinet.— 
Bellarmin.] de Concil. [auctoritat. | 
lib. ii. cap. 12. [§ 7. Op., tom. ii. col. 
87. B.] 

¢ [At] Concilia non habent, neque 
scribunt immediatas revelationes, [aut 
verba Dei,] sed [tantum declarant, 
quodnam sit] verbum Dei [scriptum, 
vel traditum, et quomodo intelligi 
debeat, et praeterea] ex eo per ratio- 
cinationem deducunt conclusiones.— 


lib. ii. cap. 12. §3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
86. C.] 

4 [Causa est, quia est conclusio fidei, 
non scientize ; et credenda proponitur, 
non probatur scienda; nec ex demon- 
stratione ad videndum, sed ex reve- 
latione ad credendum profertur; non 
ratione, sed auctoritate nititur; nec 
argumentis, sed testimonio comproba- 
tur. Quare si alicui conclusioni in ma- 
teria fidei propter media tantum et 
argumenta, quibus probatur, assenti- 
rer; assensus ille meus non fidei as- 
sensus, sed scientiz habitus esset. ]— 
Stapleton. ibid. p. 374. [id est, Relect. 
Controy. Controv. iv. Quest. 2. Re- 
spons. ad Arg. 11. Op., tom. i. p. 750. 
A.] 


279 


SEoTI0n 
XXXIII. 


1/ doctrines 
.... ditt. 
1673, and 
1686. ] 


280 


Office of the Reason 


Conrrrence to one sort of men, and “ belief” to another weaker sort.° 


WITH 
FIsner. 


Wea cio 
Editt. 
1673, and 
1686. | 


And Thomas! goes with him. 

5.—Now, for further satisfaction, if not of you, yet of 
others, this may well be thought on. Man lost by sin the 
integrity of his nature, and cannot have light enough to see 
the way to heaven but by grace. This grace was first me- 
rited, after given, by Christ: this grace is first kindled in' 
faith, by which, if we agree not to some supernatural princi- 
ples, which no reason can demonstrate simply, we can never 
see our way. But this light, when it hath made reason 
submit itself, clears the eye of reason; it never puts it out. 
In which sense, it may be, is that of Optatus, “That the 
very Catholic Church itself is reasonable, as well as diffused 
everywhere.” By which “reason enlightened,’ which 
is stronger than reason, the Church in all ages hath been 
able either to convert or convince, or at least “stop the 
mouths” of philosophers and the great men of reason, in the 
very point of faith where it is at highest. To the present 
occasion, then. The first, immediate, fundamental points of 
faith, without which there is no salvation, as they cannot be 
proved by reason, so neither need they be determined by 


€ {In catholica enim ecclesia, ut 
omittam sincerissimam sapientiam, 
ad cujus cognitionem pauci_ spiri- 
tales in hac vita perveniunt, ut eam 
ex minima quidem parte, quia homi- 
nes sunt, sed tamen sine dubitatione 
cognoscant: ceteram quippe turbam 
non intelligendi vivacitas, sed creden- 
disimplicitas tutissimam facit.—S. Au- 
gustin. | contra [Epistolam Manicheei 
dictam| Fundamenti, cap. iv. [Op., 
tom. vill. col. 153. A. ] 

f (Sic enim fides preesupponit cogni- 
tionem naturalem, sicut gratia natu- 
ram, et ut perfectio perfectibile ;] nihil 
[tamen] prohibet illud, quod secun- 
dum se demonstrabile est, et scibile, 
ab aliquo accipi, ut credibile, qui de- 
monstrationem non capit.—sS. Thom. 
fAquin. Summ.] par. 1. Q/uest.] ii. 
Alrtic.] 2. ad primum. 

& Ubi ergo erit proprietas catholici 
nominis, cum inde dicta sit catholica, 
quod sit] rationabilis et ubique dif- 
fusa.—[{S.Optat. Milevitan. de Schism. 
Donatist. lib. ii. cap. 1. Op., p. 26. 
5. Optatus is illustrating the name 
Catholic from the two derivations 


which had been given of it; one 
as though it were from κατὰ λόγον, 
secundum rationem—the other from 
καθ᾽ ὅλον, secundum totum. } 

h [Eos sequamur, qui nos invitant 
certa cognoscere, quod nondum vyale- 
mus intueri,] ut ipsa fide valentiores 
facti, quod credimus intelligere mere- 
amur, non jam hominibus, sed [ipso] 
Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram illu- 
minante et firmante—S. Augustin. 
cont. Epist. Fundamenti, [ut sup.] 
cap. 14. [Op., tom. viii. col. 160. E.] 

* [Neque enim de his libris loqui- 
mur, in quibus nulla, vel pauca ac 
non multa apertissima prophetico spi- 
ritu prenuntiata, jam quoque ipsis 
rebus impletis, auctoritatem divinam 
fidelissima et preeclarissima veritatis 
luce testantur: ut omnino decipiat, 
quisquis eos superflue vel quasi fatue 
locutos aliquid putat, quibus non so- 
lum] omnia [hominum | ingeniorum- 
[que] genera subdita [videt, verum 
etiam hoc ab eis preedictum legit, per- 
fectumque cognoscit.|—S. Augustin. 
cont. Faust lib. xxii. cap. 96. [Op., 
tom. vili. col. 420. F.] 


in accepting Dogmatic Consequences. 


any Council; nor ever were they attempted, they are so plain 
set down in the Scripture. If about the sense and true 
meaning of these, or necessary deduction out of these prime 
articles of faith, General Councils determine any thing, as 
they have done in Nice and the rest, there is no inconve- 
nience that one and the same canon of the Council should 
be believed, as it reflects upon the articles and grounds 
indemonstrable, and yet known to the learned by the means 
and proof by which that deduction is vouched and made 
good. And again, the conclusion of a Council—suppose that 
in Nice about the consubstantiality of Christ with the 
Father—in itself considered, is indemonstrable by reason : 
there I believe and assent in faith: but the same conclusion, 
if you give me the' ground of Scripture and the Creed (and 
somewhat must be supposed in all, whether faith or know- 
ledge) is demonstrable by natural reason, against any Arian 
in the world.! And if it be demonstrable, 1 may know it, 
and have a habit of it. And what inconvenience in this? 
For the weaker sort of Christians, which cannot deduce, when 
they have the principle granted, they are to rest upon the 
definition only, and their assent is mere faith: yea, and the 
learned too, where there is not a demonstration evident to 
them, assent by faith only, and not by knowledge. And 
what inconvenience in this? Nay, the necessity of nature 
is such, that, these principles once given, the understanding 
of man cannot rest but it must be thus. And the Apostle 
would never have required “‘a man to be able to give a 
reason and an account of the hope that is in him,” if he 


κ΄ Almain [in] III. [Sentent.] D[is- 
tinct. xxiv. Q[ueest.] unica. [The 
argument in the text is rather implied 
than expressed in Almain. The pas- 
sage cited thus opens: Concl. 1™ 
Respectu aliquorum credibilium potest 
esse scientia et in beatis et in via- 
toribus: quorundam tamen apud 
beatos, quorundam nec apud _istos, 
nec apud illos. Patet: ista propo- 
sitio, Deus est, est unum credibile ; 
sicut patet per Paulum; Accedentem 
ad Deum oportet credere quod Deus 
est; et tamen de ista propositione et 
viatores et beati possunt habere sci- 
entiam. De beatis notum est; de 
viatoribus patet; illa potest demon- 


strari, Deus est, &c. fol. 74.)—Et, [Et 
sic similiter potest contingere, ut] id 
quod est [visum, vel] scitum, ab uno 
homine etiam in statu vie, sit ab alio 
ereditum, qui hoc demonstrative non 
novit.—S. Thom. {Aquin. Summ. ] 
Secund, Secund. Qfueest.] i. A[rtic.] 5. 
[in] Clonclus. ] 

1 [Et cum] Niczenum concilium 
{definivit, Christum esse homoousion 
Patri, ] deduxit conclusionem ex Scrip- 
turis : [in quibus diserte continetur 
unum esse Deum, et Patrem esse 
Deum, ac Filium esse Deum.|—Bel- 
larmin. de Concil{iorum auctoritat.] 
lib. ii. cap. 12. § 4. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
86. D.] 


281 


SEcTION 


XXXII. 


a uhe were 
carent 
Editt. 
1673, and 
1686. | 


[1] Pet. iii. 
5. 


282 


If a Council may err, how are we nearer to Unity ? 


Conrrrence might not be able to know his account, or have lawful inte- 


Consid. 
VII. 


rest to give it when he knew it, without prejudicing his 
faith by his knowledge. And suppose exact knowledge and 
mere belief cannot stand together in the same person, in 
regard of the same thing, by the same means, yet that doth 
not make void this truth. For where is that exact know- 
ledge, or in whom, that must not merely, in points of faith, 
believe the article or ground upon which they rest? But 
when that is once believed, it can demonstrate many things 
from it. And definitions of Councils are not principia fidet, 
“principles of faith,” but deductions from them. 

1.—And now because you ask, “ Wherein are we nearer 
to unity by a Council, if a Council may err ?’’—besides the 
answer given, I promised to consider which opinion was most 
agreeable with the Church, which most able to preserve or 
reduce Christian peace: the Roman, That a Council cannot 
err; or the Protestants’, That it can. And this I propose 
not as a rule, but leave the Christian world to consider of it, 
as I do. 

2.—First, then, I consider, Whether in those places of 
Scripture before mentioned, or any other, there be promised 
to the present Church an absolute infallibility ? or whether 
such an infallibility will not serve the turn as Stapleton, 
after much wriggling, is forced to acknowledge? “ one not 
every way exact: because it is enough, if the Church do 
diligently insist upon that which was once received. And 
there is not need of so great certainty to open and explicate 
that which lies hid in the seed of faith sown, and deduce 
from it, as to seek out and teach that which was altogether 
unknown.” ™ And if this be so, then, sure, the Church of the 
Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of infallibility 
than the present Church; which yet, if it follow the Scrip- 
ture, is infallible enough, though it hath not the same degree 
of certainty which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath. 


m ([Conservare enim tradita, rigare 
quod plantatum est, fovere quod jam 
in lucem editum est, superzedificare 
fundamento jacto, metere que alii 
seminaverunt,] exacta et omnimoda 
infallibilitate non indiget; sed satis 
est semel acceptis [diligenter insis- 
tere; neque tanta certitudine opus est 


aperire et explicare quod virtute in 
semine fidei latet, aliudque ex alio 
deducere, quam de novo rem penitus 
ignoratam explorare et docere.— 
Stapleton. ] Relect. Controy. [Con- 
trov.] iv. Q[uest.] 2. Notablile] 3. 
[Op., tom. i. p. 747. C.] 


Congruous infallibility resides in the Church in general. 283 


SEoTION 


Nor can 1 tell what to make of Bellarmine, that in a whole 
».@. 0.6005 


chapter disputes five prerogatives, in certainty of truth, “that 
the Scripture hath above a Council ;” " and at last concludes 
“That they may be said to be equally certain in infallible 
truth.” 

3.—The next thing I consider is, Suppose this “ not exact” 
but congruous infallibility in the Church, is it not residing, 
according to power and right of authority, in the whole τ ppis 
Church, [always’ understanding the Church in this place vate 
pro communitate prelatorum, for Church governors which brackets, 
have votes in councils,] and in a General Council only by © aleve 


under- 
power deputed, with mandate to determine ?° The places standing 


of Scripture, with expositions of the Fathers upon them, ΤΑΣ cre 


make me apt to believe this. “5. Peter,” saith 5. Augus- " ene ms 
11, 


tine, “did not receive the keys of the Church, but as 1673, and 


sustaining the person of the Church.”? Now for this raat 


particular, suppose the key of doctrine be to let in... added 
truth and shut out error; and suppose the key rightly Avan 
used, “infallible” in this: yet this infallibility 1s primely oe 
in the Church [docent,|? in whose person, not strictly in nit. 1673. 


his own, S. Peter received the keys. But here Stapleton veer at 


lies cross my way again, and would thrust me out of this ὁ [The 
consideration. He grants that 8. Peter received these keys, Meee 


indeed, and in the person of the Church ; “but,” saith he, eee 
rackets, 


“that was because he was primate of the Church; and, “for the 
therefore, the Church received the keys finally, but S. Peter cure 
formally” ‘—that is, if I mistake him not, S. Peter, for himself taken... 


: : : Ξ . finally and 
and his successors, received the keys in his own right ; but eee 


to this end—to benefit the Church, of which he was made ee 
ditt.1673, 
pastor. 


But I keep in* my consideration still; [for * the and 1686.] 


" Cum [enim] utraque sint infallibi- 
lis veritatis, zeque certa dici possunt.— 
[ Bellarmin.] de Concil. [auctoritat. | 


lib. ii. cap. 12, ὃ ult. (Op., tom. il. 
col. 88. C.] 
ο Quod si Ecclesie wuniversitati 


non est data ulla auctoritas, ergo neque 
Concilio Generali, quatenus Ecclesiam 
universalem representat.—Bellarmin. 
de Concil. [auctoritat. ] lib. ii. cap. 16. 
§ 4. [Op., tom. ii. col. 94. C.] 

p [Non enim sine causa inter omnes 
Apostolos hujus] Ecclesize Catholicee 
personam sustinet Petrus: huic enim 


[Ecclesize] claves [regni ccelorum] datz 
sunt, cum Petro datz [sunt.—S. Au- 
gustin.]| de Agone Christiano, cap. 
xxx. [Op., tom. vi. col. 260. C.] 

a [Ad confirmationem responde : 
quod Petrus accepit a Christo claves 
in persona ecclesie, | sed propter pri- 
matum quem gerebat Ecclesize, ideo- 
que etsi finaliter Ecclesia [illas] acce- 
pit, tamen formaliter Petrus accepit. 
—[Stapleton.] Relect. Controv. [Con- 
trov.] vi. [de med. jud. Heel. in causa 
fidei,] Q[uest.] 3. Artic. v. [in fine. 
Op., tom. i. p. 828. A.] 


284 


S. Peter received the Keys in the person of the whole Church. 


Conrerence Church here is taken pro communitate prelatorum, “ for all 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


1{For I 
would have 
it consi- 
dered also, 
τι τυ: 
1673, and 
1686. ] 


2 [the for- 
mal right 
is not in 
the re- 
ceiver only, 
but in him, 
or them 
also, whose 
person... 
Kditt. 
1673, and 
1686. | 


the prelates,” that is, for the Church as it is docent and 
regent, as it teaches and governs: for so only it relates to a 
General Council; and so 8. Augustine’ and Stapleton him- 
self understand it in the places before alleged. Now in this 
sense S. Peter received the keys formally for himself and his 
successors at Rome, but not for them only; but as he re- 
ceived them in the person of the whole Church docent, so 
he received them also in their right as well as his own, and 
for them all. And in this sense S. Peter received the keys 
in the person of the Church (by Stapleton’s good leave) both 
finally and formally]. And‘ I would have this considered, 
Whether it be ever read in any classic author, That to receive 
a thing in the person of another, or sustaining the person of 
another, is only meant finally to receive it, that is, to his 
good, and not in his right. I should think he that receives 
any thing in the person of another, receives it indeed to his 
good, and to his use, but im his right too; and that’ the 
primary and formal right is not in the receiver, but in him 


whose person he sustains while he receives it. 


[zvrr. 1639.] 


A man purchases land, and 
takes possession of it by an 
attorney. I hope the attor- 
ney,* being the hand to receive 


τ (Et cum ei dicitur] ad omnes 
dicitur, [Amas Me?] Pasce oves, &e.— 
S. Augustin. de Agone Christiano, 
cap. xxx. [ut sup. note ?.] Which can- 
not be spoken or meant of the laity. 
—And, [“ Therefore when Augustine 
sayeth, Si hocPetro tantum dictum est, 
&e. (ubi sup. p. 208. note ?.) we must 
not think by the name of the Church 
he intendeth the lay presbytery or 
the people, but he doth attribute this 
power to the Church, because the 
Apostles and their successors, the 
pastors and governors of the Church, 
received the keys in Peter and with 
Peter.” |—Bilson, Perpetual Govern- 
ment [of Christ’s Church,] chap. viii. 
in fin. [p. 104. ed. London, 1610.] 

s [Quod meo nomine possideo, pos- 
sum alieno nomine possidere: nec 
enim muto mihi causam possessio- 
nis, sed desino possidere, et alium 


[upiTt. 1673, anp 1686.] 


[I will take one of Staple- 
ton’s* own instances. <A con- 
sul or prime senator inan aris- 
tocratical government (such 


possessorem ministerio meo facio :] 
nec idem est possidere, et alieno no- 
mine possidere. Nam possidet, cujus 
nomine possidetur. Procurator alienze 
possessioni preestat ministerium.— 
[ Digest. lib. xli. tit. ii] de adquir. 
[vel amittend. | possess. cap. Quod meo, 
18. Celsus, in princip. 

t [Accepit ergo Ecclesia, id est, 
tota communitas preelatorum ecclesie, 
in persona Petri, tanquam in persona 
capitis, ut respublica in persona prin- 
cipis, vel magistratus supremi; aut ut 
senatus civicus in persona primi sca- 
bini, seu consulis. Talis acceptio non 
excludit personam Petri, aut principis 
in republica, vel primi scabini aut 
consulis in senatu, sed maxime et 
potissimum includit. Ille enim non 
solum cum ceeteris accipit, sed etiam 
pre czeteris, in quantum caput est 
ceeterorum. |—Stapleton. Relect. Con- 


A representative receives power for thewhole body which he represents. 285 


it instrumentally, and no 
more, shall take nor use nor 
right from the purchaser. 
A man marries a wife by a 
proxy" (this is not unusual 
among great persons), but I 
hope he that hath the proxy, 
and receives the woman with 
the ceremonies of marriage 
in the other’s name, must also 
leave her to be the other’s 
wife, who gave him power to 
receive her for him. 


as the Church’s is ministe- 
rially under Christ) receives 
a privilege from the senate; 
and he receives it as primarily 
and as formally for them 
as for himself, and in the 
senate’s right as well as his 
own, he being but a chief 
part, and they the whole. 
And this is 8. Peter’s case in 
relation to the whole Church 
docent and regent, saving 
that his place and power was 
perpetual, and not annual, as 
the consul’s was. | 


This stumbling-block, then, is nothing; and in my conside- 
ration it stands still, That the Church' in general, by the ' [That the 


hands of the Apostles and their successors, received the keys 
and all power signified by them, and [transmitted’ 


Srorron 


XXXII. 


Church, in 
» this notion, 


them by the 


to their successors, who] by the assistance of God’s Spirit 8. Peter, 
may be able to use them, but still in and by the same hands oe 
—and perhaps to open and shut in some things infallibly .. “ΜΙ. 
—when the Pope, and a General Council too, forgetting 1673, oa 
both her and her rule, the Scripture, are to seek how to ἐν μον 
turn these keys in their wards. within 
4.—The third particular I consider is: Suppose, in the paces 


whole Catholic Church militant, an “ absolute infallibility mitted ... 
3 ὃ : ί who,” 
in the prime foundations of faith absolutely necessary to added in 


salvation ;” 


and that this power of not erring so is no 


t Editt. 
1673, and 


communicable to a General Council* which represents it, 1686.] 


trov. [Controy.] iii. [de prim. sub- 
jecto potestat. HEccles.] Q[uzest.] i. 
Artic. 1. Beep. jad Arg. 2. [Op., tom. 
i. p. 672. 

τ rere conclusio, | Quando ma- 
trimonium fit per procuratorem, [nec 
procurator est minister, nec in ipso 
recipitur sacramentum, nec verba 
ipsius sunt materia et forma sacra- 
menti &c....] procurator autem est 
conditio sine qua non.—Sanchez, de 
[sancto] matrim[onii Sacramento, | 
lib. ii. Disput. xi. Q[uzest.] 4. No. 28. 


p. 128. [col. 2. ed. Antverp. 1626. ] 

* Non omnia illa que tradit Hccle- 
sia sub definitione judiciali (7. 6. in 
Concilio) sunt de necessitate salutis 
credenda, sed illa duntaxat que sic 
tradit concurrente universali totius 
Ecclesize consensu, implicite, vel ex- 
plicite, vere, vel interpretative. — 
Gerson. Tract. in Declaratione Verita- 
tum, que credendz sunt, ὅθ. Op., 
par. i. § 4. p. 414. [ed. 1606. et, tom. i. 
col. 22. C. ed. Dupin. ubi sup. p. 216. 
note ».] 


286 


Coyrrrence but that the council is subject to error. 


WITH 
Fisumr. 


Fallibility of Councils consistent with infallibility of the Church. 


This supposition 
doth not only preserve that which you desire in the Church, 
an infallibility, but it meets with all inconveniences which 
usually have done, and daily do, perplex the Church.Y And 
here is still a remedy for all things: For if private respects, 
if bandies in a faction,’ if power and favour of some parties, 
if weakness of them which have the managing, if any unfit 
mixture of State Councils, if any departure from the rule of 
the Word of God, if any thing else, sway and wrench the 
council,—the whole Church,? upon evidence found in express 
Scripture, or demonstration, of this miscarriage, hath power 
to represent herself in another body or council, and to take 
order for what was amiss, either practised or concluded. So 
here is a means, without any infringing any lawful authority 
of the Church, to preserve or reduce unity ; and yet grant, 
as I did, and as the Church of England doth,’ “That a 
General Council may err.’ And this course the Church 
heretofore took ; for she did call and represent herself in a 
new council, and define against the heretical conclusions of 
the former; as in the case at Ariminum, and the second of 
Ephesus, is evident ; and in other councils named by Bellar- 
mine.° Now, the Church is never more cunningly abused, 
than when men, out of this truth, That she may err, infer this 
falsehood, That she is not to be obeyed. For it will never 
follow: She may err,—Therefore, She may not govern. For 


y Possit tamen contingere quod 
quamyis generale concilium definiret 
aliquid contra fidem, Ecclesia Dei 
non exponeretur periculo: quia posset 
contingere, quod congregati in Con- 
cilio Generali essent pauci et viles, 
tam in re, quam in hominum re- 
putatione, respectu illorum, qui ad 
illud Concilium Generale minime 
conyenissent. Et tunc illorum leviter 
error extirparetur per multitudinem 
meliorum et sapientiorum et famo- 
siorum illis, quibus etiam multitudo 
simplicium adheereret magis [scilicet 
quam decem, vel duodecim, aut quin- 
decim, per quos possit generale con- 
cilinm celebrari. |—Ockam. Dial. par. 
3. lib. iii. cap. 13. [apud Goldast. 
Monarch. 8. Rom. Imper. tom. ii. 
p- 829.] 

Many of these were potent at 
Ariminum and Seleucia. 


ἃ. Determinationibus que a concilio, 
vel pontifice summo fiant super eis 
dubitationibus, que substantiam fidei 
concernunt, [quoad] dum universalis 
Ecclesia non reclamaret, necessario 
eredendum est.—Fran. Picus Miran- 
dula, [de fide et ordine credendi, } 
Theorema viii. [in tit. apud Op., 
Joann. Pic. Mirandule, tom. ii. p. 185.] 

b Artic. XXI. 

¢ Tertio: Concilium sine papa [po- 
test errare, etiam in fidei decretis, ut 
patet in Concilio Smyrnensi, cui 
subscripsit Hosius: item Mediola- 
nensi, <Ariminensi, Ephesino II., 
Constantinopolitano, sub Justiniano 
II., Constantinopolitano, sub Leone 
Isauro, et alio, sub Constantino 
Copronymo.|—Bellarmin. de Concil. 
[auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 16. 8 6. [Op., 
tom. ii. col. 94. D.] 


The Church to be obeyed although she were liable to error. 287 


He that says, ‘‘ Obey them which have the rule over you, Sscrrox 
and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls,” com- *XXI. 
mands obedience, and expressly ascribes rule to the Church. Heb. xiii. 
And this is not only a pastoral power, to teach and direct, 

but a pretorian also, to control and censure too, where 

errors or crimes are against points fundamental or of great 
consequence. Else 8. Paul would not have given the rule 

for excommunication ; nor Christ Himself have put the man 1 Cor. ν. 5. 
that will not hear and obey the Church, into the place and Matt. 
condition of an ethnic and a publican, as He doth. And *“ 1% 
Solomon’s rule is general, and he hath it twice: “ My son, Prov. i. 8. 
forsake not the teaching or mstruction of thy mother.” Fv 
Now this is either spoken and meant of a natural mother— 

and “her authority over her children is confirmed ;” and Ececlus. iii. 
“the fool” will be upon him “that despiseth her” ‘—or it is ate as 
extended to our mystical and spiritual mother, the Church. 20. 

And so the Geneva note® upon the place expresses it. And 

I cannot but incline to this opinion; because the blessings 

which accompany this obedience are so many and great, as 

that they are not like to be the fruits of obedience to a 

natural mother only, as Solomon expresses them all. And Prov. vi. 
in all this, here is no exception of the mother’s erring; for ΠΟ 
mater errans, “an erring mother,’ loses neither the right Prov. vi. 
nor the power of a mother by hererror. And I marvel what 7” 

son should show reverence or obedience, if no mother that 

hath erred might exact it. It is true, the son is not to 

follow his mother’s error, or his mother into error ; but it is 

true too, it is a grievous crime in a son to cast off all 
obedience to his mother, because at some time or in some 

things she hath fallen into error. And, howsoever, this con- 
sideration meets with this inconvenience, as well as the 

rest ; for suppose, as I said, in the whole Catholic militant 
Church, an absolute infallibility in the prime foundations of 

faith absolutely necessary to salvation;—and then, though 

the mother Church, provincial or national, may err, yet, if 

the grandmother, the whole Universal Church, cannot in 


4 Vide 5. Augustin. Confess. lib. ii. ὁ “*Porsake not thy mother’s in- 
cap. 3. [Op., tom. i. col. 83. In this _ struction, that is, the teaching of the 
chapter, 8. Augustine speaks of the Church, wherein the faithful are be- 
early care and watchfulness which his gotten by the incorruptible seed of 
mother, Monica, exerted over him. ] God’s word.”—Annot. in Prov. i. 8. 


288 


Alleged infallibility of Councils precludes correction of errors. 


Conrerencr these necessary things, all remains safe, and all occasions of 


WITH 
FIsHERr. 





Eph. v. 27. 


Matt. xxvi. 
[27.] 


Cor xi: 
23, [25.] 


disobedience, taken from the possibility of the Church’s 
erring, are quite taken away. Nor is this mother less to be 
valued by her children, because in some smaller things age 
had filled her face fuller of wrinkles. For where it is said, 
that “Christ makes to Himself a Church without spot or 
wrinkle,” that is not understood of the Church militant, 
but of the Church triumphant. And to maintain the con- 
trary, is a branch of the spreading heresy of Pelagianism.* 
Nor is the Church on earth any freer from wrinkles in 
doctrine and discipline, than she is from spots in life and 
conversation. 

5.—The next thing I consider is: Suppose a General 
Council infallible in all things which are of faith: if it 
prove not so but that an error in the faith be concluded, 
the same erring opinion that makes it think itself infalhble, 
makes the error of it seem irrevocable. And when truth 
which lay hid shall be brought to light, the Church, who 
was lulled asleep by the opinion of imfallibility, is left open 
to all manner of distractions, as it appears at this day. And 
that a Council may err—besides all other instances, which 
are not few—appears by that error of the Council of 
Constance. And one instance is enough to overthrow a 
general, be it a Council. Christ imstituted the sacrament of 
His body and blood in both kinds. To break Christ’s in- 
stitution is a damnable error, and so confessed by Stapleton. 
The council is bold, and defines peremptorily, That to “ com- 
municate in both kinds is not necessary; with a non obstante 
to the institution of Christ.” Consider now with me, Is this 


f In id [etiam] progrediuntur (Pela- 
giani) ut dicant vitam justorum in 
hoe szculo nullum omnino habere 
peccatum, et ex his ecclesiam Christi 
in hae mortalitate perfici, ut sit 
omnino sine macula et ruga, quasi 
non sit Christi Ecclesia, que in toto 
terrarum orbe clamat ad Deum: 
Dimitte nobis debita nostra, &¢.— 
8. Augustin. Lib. de Heresibus, 
Heer. Ixxxviii. [Op., tom. viii. col. 
26. D.] 

& Sess. xiii. 
note ”. | 

h [Habemus igitur duos diversos 
mores. Habemus duplicem Hcclesize 


[Vide infra, p. 290, 


consuetudinem. Quid ergo? an peral- 
terutram harum violata est institutio 
Christi? nihil minus. Nos quidem 
tenemus.... quod ecclesia Christi in 
errorem aliquem damnabilem incidere 
non potest: qualis profecto est, 
institutionem Christi in aliquo sacra- 
mento administrando pervertere atque 
violare.—Stapleton.] Return of Un- 
truths upon Mr. Jewell, Art. 2. 
Untruth 49. [Falsitatis nota in Juel- 
lum retorta, Artic. ii. Falsum (sce. 
Stapletoni, sic Juell.) 49. Mendacium 
(se. Juelli, sic Stapleton.) 94. Op., 
tom. iv. p. 1253. A.] 


Council of Constance erred respecting institution of Eucharist, 289 


an error, or not? Bellarmine and Staplecton,' and you too, Szorrox 
say it is not; because to receive under both kinds is not by XXXII. 
Divine right. No!—No, sure; for it was not Christ’s pre- 

cept, but His example. Why, but I had thought, Christ’s 
institution of a sacrament had been more than His example 

only ; and as binding for the necessaries of a sacrament, the 

matter and form, as a precept.!. Therefore speak out, and 

deny it to be Christ’s institution ; or else grant with Staple- 

ton, “It is a damnable error to go against 10. If you can 

prove that Christ’s institution is not as binding to us asa 
precept—which you shall never be able—take the precept 

with it, “ Drink ye all of this ;”™ which though you shift as Matt.xxvi. 
you can, yet you can never make it other than it is, a pea τ 
binding precept. But Bellarmine hath yet one better de- [39,325.] 
vice than this, to save the council. He saith, it is a mere 
calumny, and that the council hath no such thing: “ That 

the non obstante hath no reference to receiving under both 

kinds, but to the time of receiving it—after supper ; in which 

the council saith, the custom of the Church is to be observed, 

non obstante, ‘notwithstanding’ Christ’s example.’ How foul 
Bellarmine is in this, must appear by the words of the 

council, which are these: “Though Christ instituted this 
venerable sacrament, and gave it His disciples, after supper, 

under both kinds of bread and wine, yet, non cdstante, 
‘notwithstanding’ this, it ought not to be consecrated after 

supper, nor received but fasting. And likewise, that though, 

in the primitive Church, this sacrament was received by the 





i Bellarmin. de Eucharist. [lib. iv. ] 
cap. 26. [Op., tom. iii. col. 761; in 
which, after arguing, Non pugnare 
cum divinis literis, seu cum Christi 
mandato, communionem sub una 
specie, (capp. 24, 25.) he meets the 
objections taken from the Fathers, 
—<And, Stapleton, ubi sup. note ".] 

k [Neque dicit (Concilium Constan- 
tiense,) servandum ecclesiz morem, 
non obstante Christi preecepto, sed, 
non obstante Christi exemplo.] — 
Bellarmin. ibid. ὃ 46. [col. 768. B.] 

1 And now lately in a Catechism 
printed at Paris, 1637, without the 
author's name, it is twice affirmed 
thus: ‘The institution of a sacrament 
is of itself a command.”— Conference 
xiv. p. 244; and again, [Conference 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


xiv.] p. 260. “Institution is a precept.” 
—[A Catechism of Christian Doc- 
trine. Printed at Paris, 1637. lt 
has the approbation of the Doctors of 
Divinity of the Faculty of Paris; and 
the Preface, p. 5, states, “that the 
author’s name alone, would he take it 
well to have it here mentioned, were 
enough to justify these words: who 
for profoundness of science, and con- 
summateness in all parts of literature, 
both divine and human, is the honour 
of our times, and may be the envy 
of the happiest.” ] 

m [ὃ Ἱερεὺς μυστικῶς") Μεμνημένοι 
τοίνυν τῆς σωτηρίου ταύτης ἐντολῆς-- 
in Liturg. 8. Chrysostom. [apud Goar. 
Euchologion, p. 77. et, apud Op., 
8. Chrysostom, tom. xii. p. 791. D.] 


U 


290 


and its reception under both kinds. 


Coyrerence faithful under both kinds; yet this custom, that it should 


WITH 
FIsHEer 


be received by laymen only under the kind of bread, is to be 
held for a law, which may not be refused. And to say this 
is an unlawful custom, of receiving under one kind, is 
erroneous ; and they which persist in saying so, are to be 
punished and driven out as heretics.”" Now, where is here 
any slander of the council? The words are plain, and the 
non obstante must necessarily, for aught I can yet see, be 
referred to both clauses in the words following, because both 
clauses went before it; and hath as much force against 
receiving under both kinds, as against receiving after supper. 
Yea, and the after-words of the council couple both together 
in this reference ; for it follows, “ Ht similiter, ‘and so like- 
wise,’ that though in the primitive Church,” &c. And a 
man by the definition of this council may be an heretic, for 
standing to Christ’s imstitution in the very matter of the 
sacrament. And the Church’s law for one kind may not be 
refused, but Christ’s stitution under both kinds may ; and 
yet this council did not err! No; take heed of it. 

6.—But your opinion is more unreasonable than this: 
for consider any body collective, be it more or less universal, 
whensoever it assembles itself, did it ever give more power 
to the representing body of it, than binding power upon all 
particulars, and itself? And did it ever give this power 
otherwise, than with this reservation in nature, That it 


n Licet Christus post coenam in- 
stituerit, et suis discipulis adminis- 
traverit sub utraque specie panis et 
vini hoe venerabile sacramentum, 
tamen hoc non obstante, [sacrorum 
Canonum auctoritas Jaudabilis, et 
approbata consuetudo ecclesize serva- 
vit et servat, quod hujusmodi sacra- 
mentum] non debet confici post 
ccenam, neque [ἃ fidelibus] recipi non 
jejunis.—Here Bellarmine stays, and 
goes no farther, but the Council goes 
on: [nisi in casu infirmitatis, aut 
alterius necessitatis, a jure vel ecclesia 
concesso vel admisso.] Et [sicut heec 
consuetudo ad eyitandum  aliqua 
pericula et scandala est rationabiliter 
introducta, | quod licet in primitiva ec- 
clesia{ hujusmodi]sacramentum recipe- 
retur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, 
tamen hee consuetudo [ad evitandum 
aliqua pericula et scandala est rationa- 
biliter introducta,! quod [a conficienti- 


bus sub utraque specie, et] a laicis 
tantummodo sub specie panis suscipia- 
tur: [cum firmissime credendum sit, 
et nullatenus dubitandum, integrum 
Christi corpus et sanguinem tam sub 
specie panis, quam sub specie vini 
veraciter contineri. Unde cum hu- 
jusmodi consuetudo ab ecclesia et 
sanctis patribus rationabiliter intro- 
ducta, et diutissime observata sit,] 
habenda est pro lege, quam non licet 
reprobare, [aut sine ecclesiz auctori- 
tate pro libito mutare.] Quapropter 
dicere, [quod hance consuetudinem aut 
legem observare, sit sacrilegum, aut] 
illicitum, censeri debet erroneum : et 
pertinaciter asserentes [oppositum 
premissorum,| tanquam heeretici 
arcendi sunt, [et graviter puniendi 
per dicecesanos, &c. — Concil. Con- 
stant. IIL. an. 1415.] Sess. xiii. [Concil. 
tom. xii. col. 100. B—D.] 


The decisions of a Council may be reversed by the whole Church, 


would call again and reform, yea, and if need were, abrogate, 
any law or ordinance, upon just cause made evident that 
this representing body had failed in trust or truth? And 
this power, no body collective, ecclesiastical or civil, can put 
out of itself, or give away to a parliament or council—or call 
it what you will that represents it. Nay, in my Considera- 
tion, it holds strongest in the Church; for a council hath 
power to order, settle, and define differences arisen concern- 
ing faith. This power the council hath not by any im- 
mediate institution from Christ, but it was prudently taken 
up in the Church, from the apostles’ example.° 


291 


Srcrron 


XXXII. 


So that to Acts xv. 


hold councils to this end, is apparent apostolical tradition &—?*-1 


written ; but the power which councils so held have, is from 
the whole Catholic Church, whose members they are ; and the 
Church’s power from God. ‘ And this power the Church 
cannot farther give away” to a General Council,’ than that 
the decrees of it shall bind all particulars, and itself, but not 
bind the whole Church, from calling again; and in the after- 
calls, upon just cause to order, yea, and if need be, to 
abrogate former acts. I say, upon just cause; for if the 
council be lawfully called, and proceed orderly, and con- 
clude according to the rule, the Scripture, the whole Church 
cannot but approve the council, and then the definitions of 
it are binding. And the power of the Church hath no 
wrong in this, so long as no power but her own may meddle 
or offer to infringe any definition of hers made in her repre- 
sentative body, a lawful General Council. And certain it 
is, no power but her own may do it. Nor doth this open 
any gap to private spirits ; for all decisions in such a council 
are binding; and because the whole Church can meet no 
other way, the council shall remain the supreme, external, 
living, temporary, ecclesiastical judge of all controversies ; 
only the whole Church, and she alone, hath power, when 


° In novo [vero] testamento exem- 
plum celebrationis conciliorum ab 
apostolis habemus : [qui ut colligitur 
ex libro Actuum, et ex traditione 
patrum, plures synodos ad nascentis 
ecclesize informationem instituisse re- 
feruntur.|—Johan. de Turrecremata, 
Summ. de Ecclesia, lib. iii. cap. 2. 
—Et firmitas conciliorum nititur ex- 
emplo primi concilii.—Stapleton. Re- 


lect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. Q[ueest. ] 
iii. A[rtic.] 4. [Respons.] ad 3. [ubi 
sup. p. 264. note ”.] 

P 'Yhis is more reasonable a great 
deal than that of Bellarmine, de 
Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 18. 
[in tit.] Pontificem non posse sub- 
jicere seipsum sententiz coactive 
pence LOR: tom. ii. col. 99. 


U 2 


292 


but only as represented by another Council. 


Coxrereyce Scripture or demonstration is found and peaceably tendered 


WITH 
Fisurr. 


to her, to represent herself again in a new council, and in it 
to order what was amiss. 

7.—Nay, your opinion is yet more unreasonable: for 
you do not only make the definition of a General Council, 
but the sentence of the pope, infallible, nay, more infallible 
than it. For any General Council may err with you, if the 
pope confirm it ποῖ So belike this infallibility rests not 
in the representative body, the council, nor in the whole 
body, the Church, but in your head of the Church, the pope 
of Rome. Now I may ask you, To what end such a trouble 
for a General Council? Or wherein are we nearer to unity, 
if the pope confirm it not? You answer, though not in the 
Conference, yet elsewhere, That the pope errs not, “especially 
giving sentence in a General Council’? And why “espe- 
cially ?”? Doth the deliberation of a council help any thing 
to the conclusion? Surely not, in your opinion; for you 
hold the conclusion “ prophetical,’ the means “ fallible: ” 
and fallible deliberations cannot advance to a prophetic con- 
clusion. And just as the council is, in Stapleton’s judg- 
ment, “ for the definition and the proofs ;” so is the pope, in 
the judgment of Melch[ior] Canus," and them which followed 
him, “ prophetical in the conclusion.” The council, then, is 
called but only, in effect, to hear the pope give his sentence 
in more state. Else what means this of Stapleton: “The 
pope, by a council joined unto him, acquires no new power, 
or authority, or certainty in judging, no more than a head is 
the wiser by joining the offices of the rest of the members 
to it, than it is without them” ?*’ Or, this of Bellarmine: 


4 Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctori- vero [pontificum] rationes [necessarise 
tat.] lib. ii. capp. 17, 18. [Op., non sunt, ne dicam apte, probabiles, 
tom. ii. col. 93. The substance of idonex, in his nihil est, videlicet 
these two chapters is: Non esse in immorandum.— Melch.] Canus, de 
Concilio summam _ potestatem—and, Locis [Theolog.] lib. vi. [de Eccles. 
Summum Pontificem absolute esse Roman. auctoritat.] cap. 8. § 8. [p. 401. 
supra concilium.] ed. Lovan. 1569. ] 

τ Et quidem in [decretis pontificiis s [Ad quartum dicendum, quod 
duo cum primis distinguenda sunt. Augustinus illud dixit, non quia illud 
Unum est, tanquam intentio conclusio- simpliciter necesse putabat, sed] quia 
que decreti: alterum, quasi ratio et ad compescendos [illos] importunos 
causa a pontifice reddita ejus rei, heereticos [illud] medium generalis 
quam constituerit. Atque] in con-  concilii [evidentius et] illustrius, [ut 
clusione pontifices summi errare ne- re vera est, existimabat. Concilii 
queunt, [si fidei quastionem ex enim generalis definitio, evidentior 
apostolico tribunali decernant.| Sin est heeresis condemnatio,] et [que] 





Extreme views of the Pope’s personal infallibility 


“That all the firmness and infallibility of a General Council, 
is only from the pope, not partly from the pope and partly 
from the council?” * So, belike, the presence is necessary, 
not the assistance; which opinion is the most groundless 
and worthless that ever offered to take possession of the 
Christian Church. And I am persuaded, many learned men 
among yourselves scorn it at the very heart; and I avow it, 
I have heard some learned and judicious Roman Catholics 
utterly condemn it. And well they may; for no man can 
affirm it, but he shall make himself a scorn to all the learned 
men of Christendom, whose judgments are not captivated 
by Roman power. And for my own part, I am clear of 
Jacobus Almain’s opinion: “And a great wonder it is to 
me, that they which affirm the pope cannot err, do not 
affirm likewise that he cannot sin. And I verily believe 
they would be bold enough to affirm it, did not the daily 
works of the popes compel them to believe the contrary.” ἃ 
For very many of them have led lives quite contrary to the 
Gospel of Christ; nay, such lives as no Epicurean monster, 
storied out to the world, hath outgone them in sensuality, or 
other gross impiety, if their own historians be true. Take 
your choice of John the Thirteenth,* about the year 966; 
or of Sylvester the Second, about the year 999; or John the 
Highteenth, about the year 1003; or Benedict the Ninth, 
about the year 1033; or Boniface the Eighth, about the 
year 1294; or Alexander the Sixth, about the year 1492. 
And yet these, and their lke, must be infallible in their 
dictates and conclusions of faith. Do your own believe it ὃ 


credo assererent, nisi quotidiana sum- 


vulgo hominum magis  satisfacit, 
morum pontificum opera ad creden- 


[quam unius Supremi Pastoris decre- 


tum. — Stapleton.] Relect. Controy. 
[ Controv. ] vi. Q[ ueest. ] iii. A[rtic.] 5. 
[ad 4. Op., tom. i. p. 827. B.] 

* At contra: nam [imprimis Domi- 
nus soli Petro dixit: Oravi pro te, et, 
Pasce oves Meas, non dixit hee Petro 
et concilio. Item solum Petrum yo- 
cavit petram et fundamentum, non 
Petrum cum concilio :] ex quo apparet 
totam firmitatem conciliorum legiti- 
morum esse a pontifice; non partim 
a pontifice, partim a concilio.—[ Bel- 
larmin.] de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. 
ὃ [34. Op., tom. i. col. 810 B.] 

« Kt mirum est quod adversarii 
non asserant eum impeccabilem: et 


dum oppositum compellerent.—[ Li- 
bellus] de authoritate ecclesix, [seu 
sacrorum conciliorum eam represen- 
tantium, editus a magistro Jacobo | 
Almain, [Senonensis dicecesis Doe- 
tore Thelogo, contra Thomam de Vio 
Dominicanum, qui his diebus suis 
scriptis nisus est omnem Lcclesis 
Christi sponse potestatem enervare. | 
cap. x. ad fin. [apud Opuscula Aurea 
Jac. Almain. Paris. 1517. fol. lix. Et 
apud Gersoni Op., tom. ii. col. 1005. 
ed. Dupin. | 

x Platina et Onuphrius in Vitis 
eorum, [ Vitee Pontificum et Annotat. 
ibid. | 


293 


SECTION 


XXXII. 


294 


ConFERENCE Surely no. 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


disavowed by many Roman Catholic writers of authority. 


For Alphonsus a Castro tells us plainly: ‘“ That 


he doth not believe that any man can be so gross and 
impudent a flatterer of the pope, as to attribute this unto 
him, that he can neither err nor mistake in expounding the 


Holy Scripture.” ¥ 


well be thought it hath taken a shrewd purge. 


This comes home; and therefore it may 


For these 


words are express in the edition at Paris, 1534; but they 
are not to be found in that at Cologne, 1539; nor in that at 


Antwerp, 1556; nor in that at Paris, 1571. 


y (The whole passage in the first 
edition of this work at Paris, 1534, 
and in that of Cologne, 1539, (for 
Laud is incorrect in speaking of its 
exclusion in that edition,) runs thus: 
Si vero concedet aliquam viam patere, 
qua homo ab errore revocari possit, 
docerique perperam sacram Scrip- 
turam intellexisse, quero a quo do- 
cendus erit. Non ab alio homine, 
quia de quolibet homine causabitur 
illum decipi, nolatque ob id inter- 
pretationem ejus amplecti. Omnis 
enim homo errare potest in fide, etiam 
si papa sit. Nam de Liberio papa 
constat fuisse Arrianum, et Anasta- 
sium papam favisse Nestorianis qui 
historias legerit non dubitat. Quod 
autem alii dicunt eum qui erraverit 
in fide obstinate, jam non esse papam, 
ac per hoc affirmant papam non posse 
esse heereticum, est in re seria verbis 
velle jocari. Ad hune enim modum 
quis posset citra impudentiam asserere 
nullum fidelem posse in fide errare, 
nam cum heereticus fuerit jam desinet 
esse fidelis. Non enim dubitamus, an 
heereticum esse, et papam esse, coire in 
unum possint, sed id queerimus, an 
hominem qui alias in fide errare potu- 
isset, dignitas pontificialis efficiat, a 
fide indeviabilem.] “Non enim credo 
aliquem esse adeo impudentem Paps 
assentatorem, ut ei tribuere hoe velit, 
ut nec errare, aut in interpretatione 
sacrarum literarum hallucinari possit. 
[Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo 
illiteratos esse ut grammaticam pe- 
nitus ignorent, qui fit ut sacras literas 
interpretari possent. Si ergo in inter- 
pretatione sacrarum literarum quilibet 
homo errare potest, erit necessario judi- 
cium interpretationis penes totam eccle- 
siam, penes quam jus fuerit discernendi 
sacras Scripturas ab humanis. Nam 
hee errare non potest cum a Spiritu 
sancto sit edocta. Nullus enim verius 
Scripturam aliquam interpretari potest 


1 2 
Harding” says 


quam qui mentem et spiritum scrip- 
toris habet. Ac certum est ecclesiam 
Spiritum Dei habere. Sic enim Christus 
illi promisit.— Fr.] Alfonsi de Castro, 
[Zamorensi, ordinis Minorum,] ad- 
versus [omnes] heereses, [lib. xiii. In 
quibus recensentur et revincuntur 
omnes heereses quarum memoria extat, 
que ab apostolorum tempore ad hoc 
usque seeculum in ecclesia ortee sunt. 
Prelo Ascensiano,] lib. i, cap. 4. [fol. 
ix. Thealterations seem to have been 
made in the edition of 1545, when the 
author was at Trent. In the dedi- 
cation prefixed to the later editions, 
the author professes to have altered 
the work so as almost to have made it 
a new one.]|—And the Gloss con- 
fesses it plainly, in [Decret. par. ii.] 
C[aus.] xxiv. Q[ueest.] 1. cap. (ix.) 
A recta ergo. [ubi sup. p. 260. note ®.] 

z [The passage referred to in the 
text is: “ Alphonsus saith somewhat 
to your purpose, if the tale which you 
make him to tell were his own. Cer- 
tainly, if he once wrote it, when he 
began first to write, afterward with 
better advice he revoked it. For in 
the books of the later prints these 
words, which you rehearse, are not 
found. Thus you say, (Defence, p. 715.) 
‘Alphonsus de Castro, one of M. Har- 
ding’s own special doctors, saith : Non 
dubitamus, an heereticum esse, et 
Papam esse, coire in unum possent, 
ἅς. Non enim credo, ὅς. (Alphonsus 
de Heeresibus, lib. i. cap. 4.) This 
very saying M. Jewel bringeth in 
likewise against the popes, in the 
Defence, p. 615. under the name of 
Alphonsus, &c.”— A] Detection of 
[sundry foul] errors, &c. uttered... . 
by M. Jewel, [in ...a Defence of the 
Apologie, &c. (The falsehood of the 
Epistle to the Queen detected,) by 
Thomas] Harding, [ D.D. Lovan. 1568. 
p. 6. v.J—[And, “““ Certainly,’ saith 
he to me, (Defence, p. 617. 1. 2.) 


Opinions of the ancient Church inconsistent with these views. 295 
indeed, Alphonsus left it out of himself, in the following Sxcrioy 


editions. Well: First, Harding says this, but proves it not ; pie 
so I may choose whether I will believe him orno. Secondly, 
Be it so, that he did,—that cannot help their cause a whit. 
For, say he did dislike the sharpness of the phrase, or aught 
else in this speech, yet he altered not his judgment of the 
thing; for in all these later editions he speaks as home, if 
not more than in the first; and says expressly, “That the 
pope may err, not only as a private person, but as pope.” * 
And in difficult cases, he adds, that the pope ought to con- 
sult viros doctos, “ men of learning.” And this also was the 
opinion of the ancient Church of Christ, concerning the 
pope and his infallibility. For thus Liberius, and he a pope 
himself, writes to Athanasius: “ Brother Athanasius, if you 
think in the presence of God and Christ as I do, I pray 
subscribe this confession, which is thought to be the true 
faith of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that we 
may be the more certain that you think concerning the faith 
as we do. Ut ego etiam persuasus sim inhesitanter, ‘that 1 
also may be persuaded without all doubting,’ of those things 


which you shall be pleased to command me. 


‘your own doctor Alphonsus saith, 
De Liberio Papa, constat fuisse Aria- 
num. Touching Pope Liberius, it is 
well known he was an Arian.’ And 
where saith Alphonsus thus? Marry, 
saith M. Jewel, in his marginal quota- 
tion, Alphonsus contra Heeres. lib. i. 
cap. But read that chapter who 
will, ee in the books of sundry 
prints that I have seen, he saith it 
not. If it were once so printed, and 
afterward by the author revoked, it 
ought not to be alleged.’ — Ibid. 
(Answer to the view of Untruths,) ] 
p. 64. 

4 Ceelestinus erravit non solum ut 
privata persona, sed ut papa, We. 
| His words are: Omnis enim homo 
errare potest in fide, etiam si papa 
sit. Nam de Liberio papa revert 
Platina illum sensisse cum Arrianis, 
et Anastasium II. pontificem favisse 
Nestorianis, qui historias legerit, non 
dubitat. Ceelestinum papam etiam 
errasse circa matrimonium fidelium, 
quorum alter Jabitur in heresim, res 
est omnibus manifesta. Neque hie 
Ceelestini error talis fuit, qui soli 
negligentiz imputari debeat, ita ut 


*™b Now I 


illum errasse dicamus veluti privatam 
personam, et non ut papam qui in 
qualibet re seria definienda consulere 
debet viros doctos: quoniam hujus- 
modi Ceelestini definitio habebatur in 
antiquis Decretalibus in cap. Lauda- 
bilem, titulo de Conversione Infidelium 
quem ipse vidi et legi. Si ergo nulli 
hominum jure tenemur in interpre- 
tatione sacrarum literarum eredere, 
propterea quod quilibet homo solus 
errare potest, erit necessario judicium 
interpretationis penes totam  eccle- 
siam.|—Alphons. a Castro, adv. Hee- 
reses, lib. 1. cap. 4. [Op., col. 20. E. 
ed. Paris. 1571. ubi sup. p. 107. note’. 
With this agrees the edition of 
Antwerp, 1556, the last published in 
the author’s lifetime. | 

Ὁ [ταύτῃ οὖν τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ, ἀδελφὲ 
᾿Αὐανάσιε, τῇ οὔσῃ μόνῃ καὶ ἀληθῶς 
πίστει ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ καθολικῇ, καὶ ἀπο- 
στολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, εἰ ὁμοῴ ρονεῖς μοι, ὡς 
ἐπὶ κρίσει θεοῦ καὶ Χρίστου γράψον μοι, 
εἰ οὕτω φρυνεῖς καθὰ καὶ ἡμεῖς, καὶ τὰ 
ἶσα ἐν TH ἀληθινῇ mover | iva κἀγὼ 
πεποιθὼς ὦ, ἀδιακρίτως περὶ ὧν ἀξιοῖς 
κελεύειν jol.—Liberius in Hpist. ad 
Athanas. apud 5. Athanas. [Op.,] 


296 


Instances of Popes who have erred. 


Coyrerence would fain know, if the pope at that time were, or did think 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


himself, infallible, how he should possibly be more cer- 
tainly persuaded of any truth belonging to the faith, by 
Athanasius’s concurring in judgment with him. For nothing 
can make infallibility more certain than it is; at least, not 
the concurring judgment of that is fallible, as S. Athanasius 
was. Beside, the pope complimented exceeding low, that 
would submit his unerring judgment to be commanded by 
Athanasius, who, he well knew, coulderr. Again in the case 
of Easter, which made too great a noise in the Church of 
old, “ Very many men called for 8S. Ambrose’s judgment in 
that point, even after the definition of the Church of 
Alexandria and the bishop of Rome.’’* And this I presume 
they would not have done, had they then conceived either 
the pope or his Church infallible. And thus it continued 
down till Lyra’s time; for he says expressly: “That many 
popes, as well as other inferiors, have not only erred, but 
even quite apostatized from the faith.’?¢ And yet now 
nothing but “infallibility” will serve their turns. And some- 
times they have not only taken upon them to be infallible 
in cathedra, ‘in their chair of decision,’ but also to prophesy 
infallibly out of the Scripture. But prophetical Scripture, 
such as the Revelation is, was too dangerous for men to 
meddle with, which would be careful of their credit in not 
erring. For it fell out in the time of Innocent the Third, 
and Honorius the Third, as Aventine tells us: ‘“ That the 
then popes assured the world, that destruction was at hand 
to Saracens, Turks, and Mahometans; which the event 


showed were notorious untruths.” Ὁ And it is remarkable 


tom, i. p. 42. ed. Paris. 1608. 
ed. Paris. Latino-Gree. 1627. [Et 
tom. ii. p. 664. C. ed. Benedict.— 
This Epistle is generally considered 
to be spurious. | 

¢ [Unde necesse fuit, quia etiam ] 
post Agyptiorum supputationes, et 
Alexandrins ecclesiz definitiones, 
episcopi quoque Romane  ecclesize, 
per literas plerique meam adhue ex- 
pectant sententiam, quid existimem 
[seribere] de die pasche.—S. Am- 
bros. lib. x. Epist. Ixxxiii. [ Epistol. 
class. i. Epist. xxiii. Fratribus Epi- 
scopis, &e. ὃ 8. Op., tom. ii. col. 882. 
Di 


Ft 4 Ex quo patet quod ecclesia non 


consistit in hominibus ratione potes- 
tatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticee, vel 
seecularis, quia multi principes et 
summi pontifices, et alii inferiores 
inventi sunt apostatasse a fide : [ prop- 
ter quod ecclesia consistit in illis 
personis in quibus est notitia vera et 
confessio fidei et veritatis.—Nicholas 
de] Lyra, [ Postill.] in S. Matth. xvi. 
18. [apud Bibl. Latin. cum Gloss. 
ordinar. | 

© [Inter hee] pontifices Romani 
ex [sacra] historia, [nmempe libro 
quam Joannis Divinationem appel- 
lant, fatum exitii Saracenis, Turcis, 


Further controversy needless if the Pope’s infallibility were proved. 297 


which happened anno 1179. For then, in a council held at 
Rome, Pope Alexander the Third condemned Peter Lom- 
bard of heresy ; and he lay under that damnation for thirty 
and six years, till Innocent the Third restored him, and 
condemned his accusers. Now Peter Lombard was then 
condemned for something which he had written about the 
human nature of our Saviour Christ. So here was a great 
mystery of the faith in hand; something about the Incarna- 
tion. And the pope was in cathedra, and that in a council 
of three hundred archbishops and bishops; and in this 
council he condemned Peter Lombard, and in him, his 
opinion about the incarnation; and therefore, of necessity, 
either Pope Alexander erred, and that in cathedra, as pope, 
in condemning him; or Pope Innocent in restoring him. 
The truth is, Pope Alexander had more of Alexander the 
Great than of S. Peter in him; and being accustomed to 
warlike employments, he understood not that which Peter 
Lombard had written about this mystery. And so he and 
his learned assistants condemned him unjustly. 

8.—And whereas you profess after, “That you hold 
nothing against your conscience,’—I must ever wonder 
much how that can be true, since you hold this of the pope’s 
infallibility, especially as being “ prophetical in the con- 
clusion.” If this be true, why do you not lay all your 
strength together, all of your whole society, and make this 
one proposition evident ? For all controversies about mat- 
ters of faith are ended, and without any great trouble to the 
vhristian world, if you can but make this one proposition 
good, “That the pope is an infallible judge.” ‘Tull then, 
this shame will follow you infallibly and eternally, that you 
should make the pope, a mere man, principium fidei, “a 


et Machometicee superstitioni adven- 
tasse interpretantur, classicum clan- 


gunt, ad arma ingeminant. Macho- 
metum antichristum [1586 510] 


persuaserant, sicuti et patrum me- 
moria Joannes Annius in commenta- 
riis, quos in eundem librum edidit, 
sentit, et nostro seeculo eam super- 
stitionem desituram, Christum juxta 
Chiliastarum opinionem adventatu- 
rum, in terrisque regnaturum arbi- 
tratur, 1 qua mendacissima esse exitus 
probavit. [10.] Aventini Annal. 
Boiorum, lib. vii. p. 529. ed. Basil.1580, 





f Baron. An. 1179. No. 13. [Delata 
fuit accusatio in eodem concilio (se. 
Lateranensi) a quibusdam Alexandro 
Papze adversus scriptum Petri Lom- 
bardi Episcopi Parisiensis, quod male 
sensisset de Christi humanitate, et in 
aliis fidei articulis ab ecclesia Catho- 
lica deviasset. Tunc Alexander papa 
has dedit literas ad Guillelmum 
archiepiscopum Senonensem his verbis 

. ad abrogationem pravee doctrinze 
Petri quondam Parisiensis episcopi, 
qua dicitur, &e. | 


SEctrion 


XXXII. 


A.C. p. 68. 


298 


Coxrrnence principle or author of faith ;’ 
-whom you call Christ’s vicar, sole judge, both of Christ’s 


WITH 
FisHer. 


The opinion was unknown to the Ancient Church. 


> and make the mouth of him, 


word, be it never so manifest, and of His Church, be she 
never so learned and careful of His truth. And, for conclu- 
sion of this point, I would fain know—since this had been so 
plain, so easy a way, either to prevent all divisions about the 
faith, or to end all controversies, did they arise—why this 
brief but most necessary proposition, “The Bishop of Rome 
cannot err in his judicial determinations concerning the 
faith,’ is not to be found, either in letter or sense, in any 
Scripture, in any Council, or in any Father of the Church, 
for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ ? 
For had this proposition been true, and then received in the 
Church, how weak were all the primitive fathers, to pre- 
scribe so many rules and cautions for avoidance of heresy, 
as Tertullian, and Vincentius Lirinensis, and others do; and 
to endure such hard conflicts as they did, and with so many 
various heretics; to see Christendom so rent and torn by 
some distempered councils, as that of Ariminum, the second 
of Ephesus, and others; nay, to see the “ whole world almost 
become Arian, to the amazement of itself;” and yet all 
this time, not so much as call in this necessary assistance of 
the pope, and let the world know “that the bishop of Rome 
was infallible ;” that so in his decision all differences might 
cease! For either the fathers of the Church, Greek as well 
as Latin, knew this proposition to be true, “That the pope 
cannot err judicially in matters belonging to the faith,” or 
they knew it not. If you say they knew it not, you charge 
them with a base and unworthy ignorance, no ways like to 
overcloud such and so many learned men, in a matter so 
necessary and of such infinite use to Christendom. If you 
say they knew it, and durst not deliver this truth, how can 
you charge them which durst die for Christ, with such 
cowardice towards His Church? And if you say they knew 
it, and withheld it from the Church, you lay a most unjust 
load upon those charitable souls, which loved Christ too 
well to imprison any truth, but likely to make or keep peace 
in His Church Catholic over the world. But certainly, as no 
divine of worth did then dream of any such infallibility in 
him, so is it a mere dream, or worse, of those modern divines 


The controversy as to the power of deposing a Pope for heresy, 


who affirm it now. And as 8. Augustine™ sometimes spoke 
of the Donatists, and their absurd limiting the whole 
Christian Church to Africa only; so may I truly say of the 
Romanists confining all Christianity to the Roman doctrine, 
governed by the pope’s infallibility: “I verily persuade 
myself, that even the Jesuits themselves laugh at this; and 
yet unless they say this, which they cannot but blush while 
they say, they have nothing at all to say. But what is this 
tous? Weenvy no man. If the pope’s decision be infalli- 
ble, degant, ‘let them read’ it to us out of the Holy Scripture, 
and we will believe it.” 

9.—In the mean time, take this with you,—that most 
certain it is, That the pope hath no infallibility to attend his 
cathedral judgment in things belonging to the faith. For, 
first, Besides the silence of impartial antiquity, divers of 
your own confess it, yea, and prove it too by sundry in- 
stances.! 

10.—Secondly, There is a great question among the 
learned, both schoolmen and controversers, “ Whether the 
pope coming to be an heretic may be deposed?” And it is 
learnedly disputed by Bellarmine.* The opinions are dif- 
ferent; for the Canon Law says expressly, “He may be 


judged and deposed by the Church in case of heresy. 


s “The wild extent of the Pope’s 
infallibility and jurisdiction, is a 
mistake.” These are the words of a 
great Roman Catholic, uttered to 
inyself. But I will spare his name, 
because he is living, and I will not 
draw your envy upon him. 

h Puto quod ipsi etiam rideant, 
cum hoc audiunt: et tamen nisi hoc 
dicant, quod erubescunt si dicant, 
non habent omnino quod dicant. 
Sed quid ad nos? Nemini invidemus. 
Hoc nobis legant de Scripturis 
Sanctis, et credimus.—S. Augustin. 
[contra Donatistas Epistol. vulg.]| de 
Unitat. Ecclesiz, cap. xvii. [Op., 
tom. ix. col. 368. D. | 

i Papa non solum errore personali, 
sed et errore judiciali potest errare in 
materia fidei, [sicut et in aliis mate- 
riis. |—Almain. L[ibello] de Author. 
Eeclesiz, cap. x. [fol. lix. ubi sup. 
p. 293. note”. | 

k [ Bellarmin. | de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. 
cap. 30. [Op., tom. i. col. 699. et 


291] 


seqq. His conclusion is: Est ergo 
quinta opinio vera, papam heereti- 
cum manifestum per se desinere esse 
papam et caput... .quare ab ecclesia 
posse eum judicari, et puniri. Hee 
est sententia omnium yeterum pa- 
trum, &c.—col. 702. C.] 

1 [Si papa suee et fraterne salutis 
negligens deprehendatur, inutilis, et 
remissus in operibus suis, et insuper 
a bono taciturnus, quod magis officit 
sibi et omnibus; nihilominus innu- 
merabiles populos catervatim secum 
ducit, primo mancipio gehenne, 
cum ipso plagis multis in eternum 
vapulaturus. Hujus culpas istic re- 
darguere presumit mortalium nullus: 
quia cunctos ipse judicaturus, a ne- 
mine est judicandus, ni |si [deprehen- 
datur] a fide devius: [pro cujus 
perpetuo statu universitas fidelium 
tanto instantius orat, &c.|—[Decret. 
par. i.] Distinct. xl. cap. [vi. ex 
dictis Bonifacii,] Si pape. 


299 


SECTION 


XXXIIT. 


300 


by its enunciation assumes that he may err. 


Conrrrencr John de Turrecremata is of opinion, “That the pope is to 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


be deposed by the Church, so soon as he becomes an heretic, 
though as yet not a manifest one, because he is already de- 
prived by Divine right ;”™ and recites another opinion, “ That 
the pope cannot be deposed, though he fall into secret or 
manifest heresy.”” Cajetan thinks that the “ pope cannot be 
deposed but for a manifest heresy, and that then he is not 
deposed ipso facto, but must be deposed by the Church.”? 
Bellarmine’s own opinion is, ‘That if the pope become a 
manifest heretic, he presently ceases to be pope and head of 
the Church, and may then be judged and punished by the 
Church.”° Bellarmine hath disputed this very learnedly 
and at large, and I will not fill this discourse with another 
man’s labours. The use I shall make of it runs through 
all these opinions, and through all alike. And, truly, the 
very question itself supposes, that a pope may be an 
heretic. For if he cannot be an heretic, why do they 
question whether he can be deposed for bemg one? And 
if he can be one, then whether he can be deposed by 
the Church before he be manifest, or not till after, or 
neither before nor after, or which way they will, it comes 
all to one for my purpose. For I question not here his 
deposition for his heresy, but his heresy. And I hope 
none of these learned men, nor any other, dare deny, but 
that if the pope can be an heretic, he can err; for every 
heresy is an error, and more. For it is an error ofttimes 
against the errant’s knowledge, but ever with the pertinacy 
of his will. Therefore out of all, even your own grounds, 
if the pope can be an heretic, he can err grossly, he can err 


m [Prima autem conclusio ex ad- 
verso opinantium non videtur vera, in 
qua dicitur, quod papa occulte in 
heresim lJapsus, non] sit jure divino 
papatu privatus: [quoniam cum _ fac- 
tus heereticus esset occultus, ceciderit 
a petra fidei, supra quam totius ec- 
clesiasticee sedificii fabrica et potestas 
consurgit, necessario videtur quod a 
potestate ecclesiastica ruerit ] — 
Joann. de Turrecremata, [Summ. | 
lib. iv. par. 2. cap. 20. [ad 1.]—Ft, 
Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. 
cap. 80. [Op., tom. i. col. 699. ubi 
sup. note *. | 

n [Preemissa certitudine trium, scili- 


cet quod] papa, [ex hoe quod] factus 
[est] heereticus, non est ipso facto, vel 
jure divino, vel humano, depositus, sed 
deponendus...... [et quod Papa, 
si a fide deviat, deponendus est.] 
—Cajetan. Tract. [i.] de auctoritat. 
Pape et Concilii, cap. xx. [in init. 
apud Opuse. omnia Thome de Vit. 
Cajetani, tom. i. p. 21. ed. Lugd. 1662.] 

° Papa heereticus manifestus per se 
desinit esse papa et caput, &e. Et 
tum potest ab ecclesia judicari, et 
puniri—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. 
lib. ii. cap. 30. &c. [ubi sup. p. 299. 
note *.] 


Papal infallibility useless in practice, as no one can 


wilfully ; and he that can so err, cannot be infallible in his 
judgment, private or public: for if he can be an heretic, 
he can, and doubtless will, “judge for his heresy,” if the 
Church let him alone. And you yourselves maintain his 
deposition lawful, to prevent this. I verily believe Albert 
Pighius foresaw this blow; and therefore he is of opinion, 
“That the pope cannot become an heretic at all.”’? And 
though Bellarmine‘ favour him so far as to say his opinion 
is probable, yet he is so honest as to add that “ the com- 
mon opinion of divines is against him.” Nay, though he 
labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the First from the 
heresy of the Monothelites ;* and says that Pope Adrian 
vas deceived, who thought him one, yet he confesses: “That 
Pope Adrian the Second, with the council then held at 
Rome, and the eighth General Synod, did think that the 
pope might be judged in the cause of heresy; and that the 
condition of the Church were most miserable, if it should 
be constrained to acknowledge a wolf manifestly raging for 
her shepherd.”’* And here again I have a question to ask, 
Whether you believe the eighth General Council, or not? If 
you believe it, then you see the pope can err, and so he not 
infallible. If you believe it not, then in your judgment that 
General Council errs, and so that not infallible. 
11.—Thirdly, It is altogether in vain, and to no use, that 
the pope should be infallible, and that according to your 
own principles. Now, “God and nature make nothing in 


vain ;’ therefore, either the 


Ρ Hierarchie Ecclesiasticze [assertio, | 
per [Albertum] Pighium, [ Campen- 
sem,] lib. iv. cap. 8. [fol. cxxix. 
et seqq. ed. Colon. 1538.—The sub- 
ject of the whole chapter is: Non 
solum ad ecathedram Petri, sed etiam 
ad ipsum et successores ejus Romanos 
pontifices pertinere illud Christi 
oratione eidem impetratum privi- 
legium, ne quando deficere possit 
ejus fides ad fratrum confirmationem 
in fide. And the proposition is 
asserted, Ecclesiasticze hierarchiz 
preesidentium fidem conservari sin- 
gulari privilegio. | 

4 [Opinio Alberti Pighii (v. sup.) 
... probabilis est, et defendi potest 
facile ... Quia tamen non est certa, 
et] communis opinio est in contra- 


pope is not infallible, or at 


rium, [operz pretium erit videre, 
quid sit respondendeum, si papa 
heereticus esse possit. ] — Bellarmin. 
de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. cap. 30. § 2. 
[Op., tom. i. col. 669. A.] 

τ [ Bellarmin. | de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. 
cap. 11. [Op., tom. 1. 90]. 833. Ο.] 

s Tamen non possumus negare, 
quin Hadrianus cum Romano con- 
cilio, imo et tota Synodus VIII. 
generalis senserit, in causa heeresis 
posse Romanum pontificem judicari. 
Adde, quod esset miserrima conditio 
Keclesize, si Jupum manifeste grassan- 
tem, pro pastore agnoscere cogeretur. 
—Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. il. 
cap. 80. ὃ 5. [Op., tom. i. col. 699. 
D.] 


301 


Srcrron 


XXXII. 


302 


Correrence least God never made him so. 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


have grounds of faith, or proper knowledge, on the point. 


That the infallibility of the 
pope, had he any in him, is altogether vain and useless, is 
manifest ; for if it be of any use, it is for the settling of truth 
and peace in the Church, in all times of her distraction. 
But neither the Church, nor any member of it, can make any 
use of the pope’s infallibility that way; therefore it is of no 
use or benefit at all. And this also is as manifest as the 
rest. For hefore the Church, or any particular man, can 
make any use of this infallibility, to settle him and his 
conscience, he must either know or believe that the pope is 
infallible ; but a man can neither know nor believe it. And 
first, for belief. For if the Church or any Christian man can 
believe it, he must believe it either by Divine or by human 
faith. Divine faith cannot be had of it; for, as is before 
proved, it hath no ground in the “written word of God.” 
Nay, to follow you closer, it was never delivered by any 
tradition of the Catholic Church. And for human faith, 
no rational man can possibly believe, having no word of God 
to overrule his understanding, that he which is “ fallible 
in the means,” as yourselves confess the pope is,‘ can pos- 
sibly be “ infallible in the conclusion.” And were it so that 
a rational man could have human faith of this infallibility, 
yet that neither is, nor ever can be, sufficient to make the 
pope infallible; no more than my strong belief of another 
man’s honesty, can make him an honest man if he be not so. 
Now, secondly, for knowledge. And that is altogether im- 
possible too, that either the Church, or any member of the 
Church, should ever know that “the pope is infallible.” 
And this I shall make evident also out of your own prin- 
ciples. For your Council of Florence had told us, “ That 
three things are necessary to every Sacrament," the “ mat- 
ter,’ the “form”? of the Sacrament, and the “intention of 
the priest,” which administers it, that he imtends to do as 


τ Stapleton. Relect. Controy. [Con-  tismus, confirmatio, et ordo, que 


trov.]iv. Q[ueest. ] ii. Notab. 4. [Op., 
tom. i. p. 749. ubi sup. p. 277. note ¢. } 

“ [Heee] omnia sacramenta tribus 
perficiuntur, [ videlicet rebus tanquam 
materia, verbis tanquam forma, et 
persona ministri conferentis sacra- 
mentum cum intentione faciendi quod 
facit Ecclesia : quorum si aliquod 
desit, non perficitur sacramentum. 
Inter hee sacramenta, tria sunt, bap- 


characterem, id est, spirituale quod- 
dam signum a ceteris distinctivum, 
imprimunt in anima _ indelebile. 
Unde in eadem persona non reiteran- 
tur. Reliqua vero quatuor characte- 
rem non imprimunt, et reiterationem 
admittunt.]—Decretum Eugenii IV. 
fad Armenos,] in Concil. Florentin. 
[an. 1439. apud Concil. tom. xiii. 
col. 535. A, B.] 


Thereis always a doubt whether the Pope is truly Pope 


the Church doth. Your Council of Trent* confirms it for 
the “intention of the priest.” Upon this ground—be it 
rock or sand, it is all one, for you make it rock and build 
upon it—I shall raise this battery against the “ pope’s infalli- 
bility.” First, The pope, if he have any infallibility at all, 
he hath it as he is bishop of Rome and 8. Peter’s successor. 
This is granted.’ Secondly, The pope cannot be Bishop of 
Rome, but he must be “in holy orders first.” And if any 
man be chosen that is not so, the election is void, ipso facto, 
propter errorem persone, “for the error of the person.” 
This is also granted.” Thirdly, He that is to be made pope, 
can never be in holy orders, but by receivmg them from 
one that hath power to ordain. This is notoriously known ; 
so is it also, that with you “order is a sacrament properly 
so called.”” And if so, then the pope, when he did receive 
the order of deacon or priesthood at the hands of the bishop, 
did also receive a sacrament. Upon these grounds I raise 
my argument thus: Neither the Church, nor any member 
of the Church, can know that this pope which now sits, or 
any other that hath been, or shall be, is infallible. For he is 
not infallible unless he be pope; and he is not pope unless 
he be in holy orders; and he cannot be so unless he have 
received those holy orders, and that from one that had power 
to ordain; and those holy orders in your doctrine are a 
sacrament ; and a sacrament is not perfectly given, if 
he that administers it have not intentionem faciendi quod 
facit Ecclesia, “an intention to do that which the Church 
doth” by sacraments. Now, who can possibly tell, that the 
bishop which gave the pope orders, was, first, a man qualified 
to give them; and, secondly, so devoutly set upon his work, 
that he had, at the instant of giving them, an intention and 
purpose to do therein as the Church doth? Surely, none but 


x [Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum 
sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, 
non requiri intentionem, saltem 
faciendi quod facit Ecclesia : ana- 
thema sit. |—Concil. Tridentin. Sess. 
vii. [de Sacramentis, ] Can. xi. 

y Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. 
cap. 3. ὃ [6.1 Alterum privilegium, &c. 
[ubi sup. p. 209. note ©. ] 

z Constantinus ex laico papa circa 
ann. 767, ejectus papatu. Et Stephanus 
III. qui successit, habito concilio 


statuit, ne quis nisi per gradus eccle- 
siasticos ascendens pontificatum occu- 
pare auderet sub poena anathematis.-— 
| Nullus unquam laicorum, neque ex 
alio ordine przsumat, nisi per dis- 
tinctos gradus ascendens Diaconus, 
aut Presbyter Cardinalis factus fuerit, 
ad sacri Pontificatus honorem  pro- 
moveri. |—Decret. [par. 1.] Distinct. 
xxix. cap. [iv. ex Cone. Steph. ILI. ] 
Nullus (unquam.] 


303 


SEcTION 


XXXIII. 


804 from the doctrine of Intention ; which doctrine, however, is not true. 


Coxrerexce that bishop himself. And his testimony of himself and his 


WITH 
ΤῬΊΞΗΕΒ. 





own act—such especially as, if faulty, he would be loth to 
confess—can neither give knowledge nor belief sufficient, 
that the pope, according to this canon, is in holy orders. 
So upon the whole matter—let the Romanists take which 
they will; I give them free choice—either this canon of the 
Council of Trent is false divinity, and there is no such in- 
tention necessary to the essence and being of a sacrament ; 
or if it be true, it is impossible for any man to know, and 
for any advised man to believe, That the pope is infallible 
in his judicial sentences, in things belonging to the faith. 
And so here again a General Council, at least such an one 
as that of Trent is, can err, or the pope is not infallible. 
12.—But this is an argument ad hominem, good against 
your party only which maintain this Council. But the plain 
truth is, both are errors; for neither is the Bishop of Rome 
infallible in his judicials abont the faith, nor is this intention 
of either bishop or priest of absolute necessity to the essence 
of a sacrament, so as to make void the gracious institution 
of Christ, in case by any tentation the priest’s thoughts 
should wander from his work at the instant of using the 
essentials of a sacrament, or have in him an actual intention 
to scorn the Church. And you may remember, if you please, 
that a Neapolitan bishop,* then present at Trent, disputed 
this case very learnedly, and made it most evident that this 
opinion cannot be defended, but that it must open a way for 
any unworthy priest to make infinite nullitics in administra- 
tion of the sacraments. And his arguments were of such 
strength, wt ceteros theologos dederint in stuporem,> “ as 
amazed the other divines” which were present; and con- 
cluded, “That no internal intention was required in the 
minister of a sacrament, but that intention which did appear 
opere externo, ‘in the work itself’ performed by him; and 
that if he had unworthily any wandering thoughts—nay more, 
any contrary intention within him,—yet it neither did nor 


* Minorensis episcopus fuit. [.... οἵ Trent.’— Thorold (T. C. Laud’s 
“ Ambrosius Catharinus, who is the Labyrinth,) p. 285.] 
person the relator means by the ‘Nea- ν΄ > [P. Sarpi,] Hist. [Concil.] Trident. 


politan Bishop, who,’ as his Lordship 110. ii. pp. 276, 277. Leide, an. 1622. 
says, ‘ disputed so learnedly’ against [Ubi sup. p. 162. note ¥.] 
the common opinion in the Council 


That the Pope can err judicially may be shown, 


could hinder the blessed effect of any sacrament.” And 
most certain it is, if this be not true—besides all other incon- 
veniences, which are many—no man can secure himself upon 
any doubt or trouble in his conscience, that he hath truly 
and really been made partaker of any sacrament whatsoever— 
no, not of baptism; and so by consequence be left in doubt 
whether he be a Christian or no, even after he is baptized : 
whereas it is most impossible that Christ should so order His 
sacraments, and so leave them to His Church, as that poor 
believers in His name, by any unworthiness of any of His 
priests, should not be able to know whether they have 
received His sacraments or not, even while they have received 
them. And yet, for all this, such “ great lovers of truth,” 
and such “ careful pastors” over the “ flock of Christ,” were 
these Trent Fathers, that they regarded none of this, but 
went on in the usual track, and made their decree for the 
“internal intention and purpose” of the priest, and that 
“ the sacrament was invalid without it.” 

13.—Nay, one argument more there is, and from your 
own grounds too, that makes it more than manifest that “ the 
pope can err,” not “ personally” only, but “ judicially” also, 
and so teach false doctrine to the Church ; which Bellarmine 
tells us, “ΝΟ pope hath done, or can do.”° And a maxim 
it is with you, “ That a General Council can err, if it be not 
confirmed by the pope ; but if it be confirmed, then it cannot 
err.”4 Where, first, this is very improper language; for 
I hope no Council is confirmed till it be finished. And when 
it is finished, even before the pope’s confirmation be put to 
it, either it hath erred, or not erred. If it have erred, the 
pope ought not to confirm it; and if he do, it is a void act; 
for no power can make falsehood truth: if it have not erred, 
then it was true before the pope confirmed it; so his con- 
firmation adds nothing but his own assent: therefore his 
confirmation of a General Council, as you will needs call it, 
is at the most siynum, non causa, “a sign,’ and that such as 
may fail, but “no cause” of the Council’s not erring. But 

© [Sit igitur prima propositio :] 4 Concilia Generalia a Pontifice 
Summus pontifex cum totam ec- confirmata errare non possunt. — 
clesiam docet, in his que ad fidem Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctoritat. ] 
pertinent, nullo casu errare potest— lib. ii. cap. 2. ὃ 1. [ubi sup. p. 180. 
Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. note ©] 


3. § 1. [ubi sup. p. 21. note τ 
VOL. 1.—LAUD. X 


305 


ΞΠΟΤΙΟΝ 
XXXIII. 


306 


from his confirming Councils which taught Transubstantiation— 


Coyrerence then, secondly, if a General Council, confirmed, as you would 


WITH 
FISHER. 


have it, by the pope, have erred, and so can err, then certainly 
the pope can err judicially ; for he never gives a more solemn 
sentence for truth than when he decrees any thing in a 
General Council: therefore if he have erred and can err 
there, then certainly he can err in his definitive sentence 
about the faith, and is not infallible. Now that he hath 
erred, and therefore can err, in a General Council confirmed, 
in which he takes upon him to teach all Christendom, is 
most clear and evident. For the pope teaches in and by the 
Council of Lateran,’ confirmed by Innocent the Third, Christ 
is present in the sacrament by way of transubstantiation : 
and in and by the Council of Constance,’ the administration 
of the blessed sacrament to the laity in one kind, notwith- 
standing Christ’s institution of it in both kinds for all: 
and in and by the Council of Trent,’ Invocation of Saints 
and Adoration of Images, to the great scandal of Christianity, 
and as great hazard of the weak. Now, that these particu- 
lars, among many, are errors in divinity, and about the faith, 
is manifest both by Scripture, and the judgment of the primi- 
tive Church. For Transubstantiation, first: that was never 
heard of in the primitive Church, nor till the Council of 
Lateran, nor can it be proved out of Scripture; and, taken 
properly, cannot stand with the grounds of Christian religion. 
As for Communion in One Kind, Christ’s institution is clear 
against that; and not only the primitive Church, but the 
whole Church of Christ, kept it so till within less than four 
hundred years. For Aquinas confesses it was so in use even 
to his times ;* and he was both born and dead during the 


e [In qua (Ecclesia) idem Ipse sacer- & {Docentes fideles, sanctos ... bo- 
dos, et sacrificium Jesus Christus: num atque utile esse suppliciter invo- 
cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento care... et ad eorum orationes, opem 
altaris sub specibus panis et vini vera- , auxiliumque confugere ... Imagines 
citer continentur, transubstantiatis, porro... in templis preesertim haben- 


pane in corpus, et vino in sanguinem, 


das et retinendas, eisque debitum 
potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum 


honorem et venerationem impertien- 


mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi 
de suo quod accepit Ipse de nostro. |— 
Concil. Lateranens. [IV. an. 1215.] 
Yan. i. FConeil. tom. xi. par. 1. col. 
143. B.] 

f Concil. Constant. [an, 1415. ] Sess. 
xiii. [Concil. tom. xii. col. 100. A. 
ubi sup. p. 290. note ".]} 


dam, &c.]|—Concil. Tridentin. Sess. 
xxv. Decretum de Invocatione [Sane- 
torum. | 

h (Et quia crevit multitudo populi 
Christiani, in qua continentur senes 
et juvenes et parvuli, quorum quidam 
non sunt tantze discretionis, ut caute- 
Jam debitam circa usum hujus sacra- 


Communion in one kind—Invocation and Mediation of Saints, &c. 807 


Nay, it stands yet ϑποτιον 


reign of Henry the Third of England. 
XXXIII. 


as a monument in the very Missal,' against the present prac- 
tice of the Church of Rome, that then it was usually given 
and received in both kinds. And for Invocation of Saints, 
though some of the ancient Fathers have some rhetorical 
flourishes about it, for the stirring up of devotion, as they 
thought, yet the Church then admitted not of the invocation 
of them, but only of the commemoration of the martyrs, 
as appears clearly in 8. Augustine. And when the Church 
prayed to God for any thing, she desired to be heard for the 
mercies and the merits of Christ, not for the merits of any 





saints whatsoever. 


saints more than “mediators of mtercession,’ 
that you will acknowledge you allow the~saints.! 


menti adhibeant: ideo] provide in 
quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur, ut 
populo sanguis [sumendus] non detur, 
[sed solum a sacerdote sumatur. ]— 
S. Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 3. 
Q[ueest.] lxxx. A[rtic.] 12. [in conclus. | 
So it was but in some Churches in his 
time. [Ex quo etiam colligi posset, 
quamvis in communionibus, in quibus 
pauci laici communicabant, fuerit usus 
calicis consecrati, tamen in commu- 
nione totius populi, qualis fieri con- 
suevit in Paschate, et aliis solennita- 
tibus, non potuisse totum populum 
sub utraque specie communicare, quia 
non potuit pro tanta hominum multi- 
tudine calix aliquis ita magnus con- 
venienter consecrari, neque ullus ex 
antiquissimis, quiextant, tam eximiz 
magnitudinis usquam visus est. Ve- 
rum quia ex calice consecrato aliquid 
infundebatur vine non _ consecrato, 
fortassis dicebatur laicos etiam sumere 
calicem sanguinis. Denique hunc 
usum longo tempore in Ecclesia fuisse 
testatur Concilium Constantiense Sess. 
xili. . . Probatum est licitam esse com- 
munionem laicorum in Hcclesia sub 
altera tantum specie, id quod maxime 
etiam confirmat, quod Greci in Con- 
cilio Florentino, aut usquam alibi 
nunquam in Ecclesia Latina eam re- 
prehenderunt, etiamsi ipsi utraque 
specie semper usi fuerint, cum tamen 
multa alia tanquam falsa, et minime 
licita contra Ecclesiam Latinam obje- 
cerint ; ob id tamen] negare non pos- 
sumus, etiam in Ecclesia Latina fuisse 
usum utriusque speciei, et usque ad 
tempora ὃ. Thome durasse.—[ Com- 


For I much doubt this were to make the 


? which is all 


Bors 


ment. ac Disput.] in Tert. [part. 
Summ. 8. Thom. Aquin. Queest. Ixxx. 
Artic. 12. auctore R. P. G.] Vazquez, 
Disput. cexvi. cap. 3. No. 38. [tom. ili. 
p. 431. | 

* Refecti cibo potuque ccelesti, 
Deus noster, Te supplices exoramus, 
[αὖ in cujus hee commemoratione 
percepimus, ejus muniamur et preci- 
bus. Per &c.|—In proprio Missarum 
de Sanctis Januar. xv. (sc. S. Pauli, 
primi Eremite,] Orat. Postecommun. 
And Januar. xxi. [se. 5. Agnetis, V. 
et M.] 

ἘΞ Nos autem martyribus nostris non 
templa sicut Diis, sed memorias sicut 
hominibus mortuis, quorum apud 
Deum vivunt spiritus, fabricamus ; 
nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sa- 
crificemus martyribus, sed uni Deo et 
martyrum et nostro :] ad quod sacri- 
ficium, [sicut] homines Dei, [qui mun- 
dum in Hjus confessione vicerunt, | 
suo loco et ordine nominantur ; non 
tamen a sacerdote, qui sacrificat, 7nvo- 
cantur. [Deo quippe, non ipsis saeri- 
ficat, quamvis in memoria sacrificet 
eorum: quia Dei sacerdos est non 
illorum. Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus 
est Christi.|—S. Augustin. de Civitate 
Dei, lib. xxii. cap. 10. [Op., tom. vii. 
col. 673. G.] 

! Ad primum ergo locum [(sc. 1 Tim. 
2. Unus est mediator &c.) respondeo, 
tribus de causis dici Christum unum 
et solum mediatorem Dei et hominum. 
Primo &e. ... notandum enim est 
posse tribus modis unum mediatorem 
reconciliare duos dissidentes: uno 
modo, &c. ... tertio modo, orando cre- 


x 


308 


(as practised by the Church of Rome)— 


Conrrrence pray, is not “by the merits” more than “ by the interces- 


WITH 
FrsHer. 


sion?” Did not Christ redeem us by His merits? And if 
God must hear our prayers for the “ merits of the saints,” 
how much fall they short of sharers in the “ mediation of 
redemption?” You may think of this. For such prayers 
as these the Church of Rome makes at this day, and they 
stand—not without great scandal to Christ and Christianity 
—used, and authorized to be used in the Missal. For in- 
stance, upon the Feast of S. Nicolas you pray “that God, 
by the merits and prayers of S. Nicolas, would deliver you 
from the fire of hell.’" And upon the Octaves of 5. Peter and 
S. Paul, you desire God “ that you may obtain the glory of 


eternity by their merits.’° 


And on the Feast of S. Bona- 


venture, you pray “ that God would absolve you from all 


your sins by the interceding merits of Bonaventure.”? 


ditorem, ut debitum remittat ... Pos- 
tremo (hoc) modo etiam sancti dici 
possunt mediatores inter Deum, et eos, 
pro quibus orant: neque est, cur time- 
amus, nomen mediatoris transferre ad 
sanctos, sicut ad eos transferimus 
nomen adyocati et interéessoris &c.]— 
Bellarmin. de Sanct. Beatitud. lib. i. 
cap. 20. ὃ [12. Op., tom. ii. col.751. C.] 

™ | Sexta objectio, (sc. sanctorum pas- 
sionibusexpiari possent nostra delicta,) 
non esset absurdum eos appellare nos- 
tros redemptores, saltem ex parte. At 
solus Christus est Redemptor &c.... 
Ad argumentum igitur respondemus, 
Si proprie et absolute nomen Redemp- 
toris accipiatur, solum Christum esse 
Redemptorem... At si largo modo 
Redemptor appelletur quicunque libe- 
rat alium ab aliquo debito, non erit 
absurdum, si sancti viri] redemptores 
nostri aliquo modo, id est, secundum 
aliquid, [non simpliciter, et largo 
modo, non in rigore verborum esse di- 
cantur. |—Bellarmin. de Indulgentiis, 
lib i. cap. 4. “Op., tom. vii. col. 426, 
C. 427. A,B. Et sanctos appellat 
numina Bellarminus, de Imaginib. 
Sanct. lib. ii. cap. 23. ὃ 3. Now if 
this word nwmen signify any thing 
else besides God Himself, or the 
power of God, or the oracle of God, let 
Bellarmine show it, or A. C. for him. 
—(Thorold (T. C. Laud’s Labyrinth,) 
p. 293, says, “ in the place he (Laud) 
cites, there is not the least shadow, 
or intimation, of any such matter, his 
(Bellarmine’s) whole discourse there 


And 


being of Images and not of the Saints.” 
This is true, and there seems to be 
some ground for supposing not only 
the reference to be wrong, which it is, 
but that Bellarmine does not apply 
the term NVumina to the saints. The 
only passage in Bellarmine’s Treatises 
which the present Editor has met 
with where the word occurs, is, De 
Imaginib. Sanct. lib. ii. cap. 8. § ult. 
Unde Lampridius ea simulachra 
ibidem appellat Numina; numina 
autem non vocantur imagines, nisi 
proponantur adorande pro Diis. And 
in the Preface prefixed to the Dis- 
sertations on this subject, Bellarmine 
confines the term Mwmen, and Di- 
vinum Numen, to God Himself. ] 

" (Deus, qui beatum Nicolaum pon- 
tificem innumeris decorasti miraculis : 
tribue, quasumus,] ut ejus meritis 
et precibus a Gehenne incendiis li- 
beremur.-—In proprio Missarum de 
Sanctis, Decemb. vi. [sc. Fest. S. Nico- 
lai, Episcopi et Μ.] 

° | Deus, cujusdextera beatum Petrum 
ambulantem in fluctibus ne mergeretur, 
erexit, et coapostolum ejus Paulum ter- 
tio naufragantium de profundo pelagi 
liberavit : exaudi nos propitius, et con- 
cede,] utamborum meritis eeternitatis 
gloriam consequamur.—Ibid. Jul. vi. 
[sc. in Oct. SS. Apostol. Petri et 
Pauli.] 

P KEjus intercedentibus meritis ab 
omnibus nos absolve peccatis.—Ibid. 
Julii xiv. [se. Fest. S. Bonaventure, 
EpiscopietConf.—In theRoman Missal, 


and in the Adoration of Images. 


309 


for Adoration of Images, the ancient Church knew it πο.  gxorrox 
And the modern Church of Rome is too like to paganism in *XXHL 


the practice of it, and driven to scarce intelligible subtleties 
in her servants’ writings that defend it; and this without 
any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her 
subtleties or shun her practice. Did I say, “ the modern 
Church of Rome is grown too like paganism in this point ?” 
And may this speech seem too hard? Well, if it do, I will 
give a double account of it. The one is, It is no harsher 
expression than they of Rome use of the Protestants, and in 
cases in which there is no show or resemblance. For Becanus 
tells us, ‘ It is no more lawful to receive the Sacrament as 
the Calvinists receive it, than it is to worship idols with the 
ethnics.”* And Gregory de Valentia enlarges it to more 
points than one, but with no more truth: “ The sectaries of 
our times,” saith he, “ seem to err culpably in more things 
than the Gentiles.”* This is easily said, but here is no 
proof. Nor shall I hold it a sufficient warrant for me to 
sour my language, because these men have dipped their pens 
in gall. The other account, therefore, which I shall give of 
this speech, shall come vouched both by authority and reason. 


the Office of S. Bonaventure contains 
the following collect: Deus, qui populo 
tuo eternz salutis beatum Bonaven- 
turam ministrum tribuisti: preesta, 
quesumus, ut, quem Doctorem vite 
habuimus in terris, intercessorem 
habere mereamur in ccelis.—The Paris 
Missal has an office quite different ; 
but not with the words quoted by 
Laud, which may probably be found 
in some local Use.] 

4 In Optatus’ time the Christians 
were much troubled upon but a false 
report, that an image was to be 
placed upon the altar. What would 
they have done if adoration had been 
commanded ? &c. [Dicebatur enim illo 
tempore venturos Paulum et Maca- 
rium, qui interessent sacrificio, ut cum 
altaria solemniter aptarentur, profer- 
rent illi imaginem, quam primo in 
altare ponerent, et sic sacrificium 
offerretur. Hoc cum acciperent aures, 
percussi sunt et animi, et uniuscujus- 
que lingua in heec verba commota est, 
ut omnis qui heec audieret diceret, Qui 
inde gustat, de sacro gustat.| Et recte 
dictum erat, si talem famam similis 
veritas sequeretur.—S. Optat. [Mile- 


vitan. de Schism. Donatist.] 1110. iii. ad 
fin. [eap. 12. Op., p.67.—The image, 
which the Donatists had thus falsely 
charged the Catholics with placing on 
their altars, has been said to be that of 
the Emperor Constans. | 

t [Heeretici.... vitandisunt.... 
tertio, si timeatur scandalum. Hine 
sequitur primo, non licere cum iis 
sumere synaxin more Calvinistico ;] 
sicut non licet cum ethnicis idola 
colere. {Hae enim communicatio in 
rebus divinis est illicita, quia est con- 
tra veram fidem.|—|Martin.] Becan. 
[Opuse. Theologic. tom. ii. p. 41.] 
libello de fide Hereticis servanda, 
cap. viii. [3. p. 11. ed. Mogunt. 1610. } 

s Nam ut ipse D. Thomas notat, 
contingit aliquando hereticos circa 
plura errare quam Gentiles, ut Mani- 
cheei. Quod nos possumus vere dicere 
de nostri temporis sectariis, qui cul- 
pabiliter in pluribus videntur errare. 
—([Gregor. 46] Valentia, [Comment. 
Theolog.]in{S.Thom. Aquin.]Secund. 
Secund. Disp. i. Q[uzest.] x. [de Infi- 
delitate,] Punct. 3. [Quotuplex sit 
infidelitas, tom. 111. col. 452. A.] 


310 


Testimonies from Roman Catholic writers 


Coxrrrexor And first, for authority. I could set Ludovicus Vives against 


WITH 
FISHER. 


Becanus, if I would, who says expressly, “ that the making of 
feasts at the oratories of the martyrs (which 8. Augustine 
tells us, ‘ the best Christians practised not,’)* are a kind of 
parentalia, funeral-feasts, too much resembling the super- 
stition of the Gentiles.”" Nay, Vives need not say “re- 
sembling that superstition,” since Tertullian tells us plainly, 
“ that idolatry itself is but a kind of parentation.”* And 
Vives, dying in the communion of the Church of Rome, is a 
better testimony against you, than Becanus or Valentia, 
being bitter enemies to our communion, can be against us. 
But I will come nearer home to you, and prove it by more 
of your own. For Cassander, who lived and died in your 
communion, says it expressly, “ That in this present case of 
the adoration of images, you came full home to the super- 
stition of the heathen.” ¥ And, secondly, for reason—I have, 
I think, too much to give, that the modern Church of Rome 
is grown too like to paganism in this point. For the 
Council of Trent itself confesses, “ that to believe there is 
any divinity in images, is to do as the Gentiles did by their 


idols.” 5 


τ (Quecumque igitur adhibentur 
religiosorum obsequia in martyrum 
locis, ornamenta sunt memoriarum, 
non sacra vel sacrificia mortuorum 
tanquam deorum. Quicumque etiam 
epulas suos eo deferunt, | quod quidem 
a Christianis melioribus non fit, [et 
in plerisque terrarum nulla talis est 
consuetudo ; tamen quicumque id fa- 
ciunt, quas cum apposuerint, orant, et 
auferunt ut vescantur, &c.|—S. Au- 
gustin. de Civitate Dei, lib. viii. cap. 
27. [Op., tom. vii. col. 217. D.] 

ἃ (Hie error in Africa potissimum 
observabatur, ut testatur Confess. lib. 
WAMCAD: 2.1.5. τς ista non fieri, nee ab 
eis, qui sobrie facerent, ne ulla occasio 
ingurgitandi se daretur ebriosis, et 
quod} illa quasi parentalize super- 
stitioni Gentilium simillima. — Lud. 
Vives, ibid. [apud Augustin. de civitat. 
Dei, &c. accedunt commentarii eruditi 
Joann. Ludoy. Vives, Hispal. &c. ed. 
Francof. ac Hamburgee, 1661. p. 820.] 

* Quod ergo mortuis litabatur, uti- 
que parentationi deputabatur. Quee 
species proinde idololatrize est, quo- 
niam et idololatria parentationis est 


And though, in some words after, the fathers of 


species.—Tertull. lib. de Spectaculis, 
cap. xii. [Op., p. 78. C.] 

y Manifestius [enim] est, quam ut 
multis verbis explicari debeat, ima- 
ginum et simulachrorum cultum ni- 
mium inyaluisse, et affectioni, seu 
potius superstitioni, populi plus satis 
indultum esse, ita, ut ad summam 
adorationem, que vel a paganis suis 
simulachris exhiberi consuevit, [et ad 
extremam vanitatem, quam ethnici in 
suis simulachris et imaginibus effin- 
gendis et exornandis admiserunt, nila 
nostris reliqui factum esse videatur, &c. 
—Cassander, in Consult. Artic. xxi. C. 
{de cultu sanctorum, cap. 4.| de Ima- 
ginibus [et simulachris, Op., p. 978. 
ed. Paris. 1616.] Where he names 
divers of your own—as, namely, Du- 
rantus Mimatensis Episcopus, John 
Billet, Gerson, Durand, Holkot, and 
Biel, rejecting the opinion of Thomas, 
and other superstitions concerning 
images.— Ibid. 

Non quod credatur inesse aliqua 
in iis divinitas, [vel virtus, propter 
quam sint colendee, vel quod ab eis sit 
aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in 


to the existence of great superstition with respect to Images. 


that Council seem very religiously careful “ that all occasion 
of dangerous error be prevented ;” ὃ yet the doctrine itself is 
so full of danger, that it works strongly, both upon the learned 
and unlearned, to the scandal of religion, and the perverting 
of truth. For the unlearned first : How it works upon them, 
by whole countries together, you may see by what happened in 
Asturia,' Cantabria, Galetia,—no small parts of Spain. “ For 
there the people,” so he tells me that was an eye-witness, 
and that since the Council of Trent, “are so addicted 
to their worm-eaten and deformed images, that when the 
bishops commanded new and handsomer images to be set up 
in their rooms, the poor people cried for their old, would not 
look up to their new,—as if they did not represent the same 
thing.” ” And though he say this is by little and little 
amended, yet I believe there is very little amendment. 
And it works upon the learned, too, more than it should. 
For it wrought so far upon Lamas himself, who bemoaned 
the former passage, as that he delivers this doctrine: “ That 
the images of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the saints, are 
not to be worshipped as if there were any divinity in the 
images, as they are material things made by art, but only as 
they represent Christ and the saints; for else it were idolatry.” 
So then, belike, according to the divinity of this casuist, a 


imaginibus sit figenda,] veluti olim 
fiebat a gentibus, |quee in idolis spem 
suam collocabant. |—Concil.Tridentin. 
Sess. xxv. Decretum de Invocatione 
{Sanctorum. ] 

* [In has autem sanctas et salutares 
observationes si qui abusus irrepserint, 
eos prorsus aboleri sancta synodus 
vehementer cupit, ita ut nullee falsi 
dogmatis imagines} et rudibus peri- 
culosi erroris occasionem [preebentes 
statuantur. |— Ibid. 

6 (Que doctrina (Concilii scil. Tri- 
dent.) omni diligentia proponenda est, 
et fideles praecipue rudiores instruendi, 
precipue in montanis, ubi gentes non 
sunt adeo culte, ut in Asturiis, Canta- 
bria, et Galetia, nostree Hispania, ubi 
major est indecentia, et fere irrisibilis 
deformitas,] et adeo gens affecta est 
truncis corrosis et deformibus imagini- 
bus, ut me teste, quoties episcopi [illas 
renovant, et | decentiores [loco illarum ] 
ponere jubent, [in suis parceciarum 
visitationibus,] veteres suas petant 
plorantes, [et novas neque aspicere 


velint, &c.]—Summa [Ecclesiastica, 
sive Instructio Confessariorum et Poeni- 
tentium authore] Hieronymo 
Llamas, par. 3. cap. 111, [p. 271. ed. 
Mogunt. 1605. | 

¢ [His words are: Solum adverti- 
mus pro rudioribus, quod Redemptoris 
nostri et Domini, et sancvissime 
matris ejus, et sanctorum imagines sic 
venerari, et colere, ut credatur vel 
profiteatur in ipsis esse divinitatem 
imaginibus, ] secundum quod sunt quee- 
dam materia arte effigiata, et non sc- 
cundum quod repreesentant Christum 
Redemptorem, et sanctos, [et eorum 
sunt memorize, et quasi rudiorum libri, 
existimare ab statua, vel imagine, ut 
res queedam est, debere peti aliquid, 
vel ob illa sperare posse, et non ac- 
tualiter, vel virtualiter referendo in 
Christum Redemptorem, ut prototy- 
pum, et in sanctos repreesentatos, | 
esset idololatria, [sculpturze et operis 
manuum hominum, toties in sacra 
Scriptura a Deo abominata et repre- 
hensa. |— Llamas, ibid. [pp. 270, 271.] 


511 


ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ 
XXXIII. 


1 | Asturiis 
eee ΠΟ 0: 
1673, and 
1686. | 


312 


This has tended to subvert all regard for external worship. 


Conrrrencs Man may worship images, and ask of them, and put his trust 


WITH 


FISHER. 


A.C. pp. 
63, 64.] 


in them, “ as they represent Christ and the saints :” for so 
there is divinity in them, though not as things, yet as repre- 
senters. And what, I pray, did or could any pagan priest 
say more than this? For the proposition resolved is this: 
“The images of Christ and the saints, as they represent their 
exemplars, have deity or divinity inthem.” And now I pray, 
A. C., do you be judge, whether this proposition do not teach 
idolatry ? and whether the modern Church of Rome be not 
grown too like to paganism in this point? For my own part, 
I heartily wish it were not; and that men of learning 
would not strain their wits to spoil the truth, and rent the 
peace of the Church of Christ, by such dangerous, such 
superstitious vanities—for better they are not, but they 
may be worse. Nay, these and their lke have given so 
great a scandal among us, to some ignorant, though, I 
presume, well-meaning men, that they are afraid to testify 
their duty to God, even in His own house, by any outward 
gesture at all; imsomuch that those very ceremonies 
which, by the judgment of godly and learned men, have now 
long continued in the practice of this Church, suffer hard 
measure for the Romish superstition’s sake. But I will 
conclude this point with the saying of B. Rhenanus: “ Who 
could endure the people,” says he, ‘ rushing into the church 
like swine into a stye? Doubtless, ceremonies do not hurt 
the people, but profit them, so there be a mean kept, and the 
bye be not put for the main; that is, so we place not the 
principal part of our piety in them.’’4 

The conference grows to an end, and I wee meet it 
again ere we part. Jor you say, 


f. After this, we all rising, the lady asked the %. 
whether she might be saved in the Roman faith. 
He answered, She might.* 


* ({ Here again the Chaplain taxcth the Jesuit, saying, That the 38. did not 


answer thus in particular. 


4 Quis ferat populum in templum ir- 
ruentem, ceu in haram sues ? Certe non 
obsunt populo ceremoniee, sed prosunt, 
si modus in eis servetur, et caveamus 
he πάρεργα τῶν ἔργων loco habeantur, 
hoc est, ne praecipuam pietatem in illis 


But the Jesuit is sure he did; and it appeareth 
to be so by the Jesuit’s words, who said to the lady, “ Mark that !” 


Unto which 


collocemus.—| Beatus] Rhenanus, An- 
notat. in Tertullian. lib. de corona 
milit. [ad yerba, Amplius aliquid 
respondentes quam Dominus in evan- 
gelio determinavit, cap. iii. apud Ter- 
011. Op., p. 336. G. ed. Paris. 1582. ] 


Fisher objects to Laud’s first Account of the Conference. 313 


᾽ 


the 39. replied, saying, “She may be better saved in it than you:” which reply Srorton 
sheweth that the 38. had said, that she in particular might be saved in the XXXIII. 
Roman faith. Otherwise, if his first answer had been as the Chaplain would ————— 
now make, the %. should have said, The ignorant may be saved in it, but 
neither you nor she. But the Jesuit is sure that this answer of the %., and 
reply of the Jesuit, “ Mark that,’ was just as he related, without any such 
addition as now the Chaplain doth relate; and that if such a caveat were added, 
it was after the end of the conference, and not in the Jesuit’s presence. Out of 
this last passage the Chaplain observeth that the Catholics take advantage, 
and make use of the argument drawn from Protestants granting that one 
living and dying a Roman Catholic may be saved ; accounting it secure so to 
live and die, even by confession of adversaries. The force of which argument 
he endeavoureth to weaken by saying, that although Protestants grant it to be 
possible, yet they say withal that it is not secure, but hard, ὅθ. But he must 
remember, that when Protestants grant, that in the Roman faith and Church 
there is ground sufficient, and consequently possibility of salvation, this is 
a free confession of the adversaries against themselves, and therefore is of 
force against them, and is to be thought extorted from them by the force 
of truth itself. But when Protestants do say that salvation is more securely 
and easily had in Protestant faith and Church than in the Roman, this only is 
their partial private opinion in their own behalf, which is of no weight; 
especially when Roman Catholics, far more in number, and far more spread in 
place, and of much longer continuance in time, and for virtue and learning at 
least equal, or rather much exceeding Protestants, do confidently and unani- 
mously, and with authority and reason, prove that, according to the ordinary 
course of God’s providence, out of the Catholic Roman Church there is no pos- 
sibility of salvation : and therefore who will not think it safer to adhere to the Ca- 
tholic Roman faith and Church, in which all, both Catholics and best learned Pro- 
testants, do promise possibility of salvation without doubt, than to the Protestant 
Church, since all Roman Catholics do threaten damnation to all who obstinately 
adhere unto it, and die in it? The which threat doth not proceed out of 
malice, or want of charity, but is grounded in charity; as are the like threats 
of Christ our Saviour, and holy fathers, who, knowing that there is but one true 
faith and one true Church, out of which there is no salvation, do, out of 
their charitable care of our souls’ good, so commend to us the belief of that 
faith, and the cleaving to that Church, as they pronounce, He that shall not 
believe shall be condemned, (Mark xvi. 16.); and, He that will not hear the 
Church, and have it for his mother, is to be accounted as a heathen and 
publican, (Matth. xviii. 17.) and cannot have God to be his Father; accounting 
it more charity to forewarn us by these threats of our peril, that we may fear 
and avoid it, than to put us in a false security, and so to let us run into 
danger for want of foresight of it. Those examples which the Chaplain gives, 
of the Donatists giving true baptism in the opinion of all, and Protestants 
holding a kind of real presence not denied by any, are nothing like our case. 
For in these cases there are annexed other reasons of certainly known peril of 
damnable schism and heresy, which we should incur by consenting to the 
Donatists’ denial of true baptism to be among Catholics, and to the Pro- 
testants’ denial or doubting of the true substantial presence of Christ 
in the Eucharist. But in our case there is confessedly no such peril of 
any damnable heresy, schism, or any other sin, in resolving to live and die in 
the Catholic Roman Church; and in case some Protestants should say, that 
there is peril of damnation in living and dying Roman Catholics, the 
authority of them that say there is peril being so few, in comparison of those 
who say there is none, and so passionate and partially-affected men, who are 
in this their saying contradicted by their own more learned brethren, ought 
not to be respected more than a scarecrow. But the authority of those who 
allow salvation to such as do live and die Roman Catholics, being so many, so 
ancient, 80 virtuous, so learned, and some no way partially affected, but 
opposite to the Roman Church, ought to be accounted of exceeding great 
weight, and may worthily persuade any wise man that it is most secure to live 
νη ἃ diea Roman Catholic ; and consequently that, inso important a matter, this 
most secure course of living and dying in the Roman Church ought in all reason 
to be chosen ; and that so precious a jewel as the soul is, ought not to be left to 
the hazard of losing heaven, and falling into hell, by relying upon one’s own 


314 


Under what conditions it may be admitted that salvation 


ConFERENCE opinion, or the opinion of those few new Protestant doctors, who acknowledge 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


§ 84. 


(A.C. p. 
64.] 


§ 35. 


that their whole congregation may err; and much more, therefore, may they 
think that each member thereof may be deceived, in following his own or any 
other man’s opinion.—A. C. marg. note to p. 64. 


2%. What! Not one answer perfectly related!* My 
answer to this was general, for the ignorant, that could not 
discern the errors of that Church, so they held the founda- 
tion, and conformed themselves to a religious life. But why 
do you not speak out what I added in this particular ?— 
“ That it must needs go harder with the lady, even in point 
of salvation, because she has been brought to understand 
very much, for one of her condition, in these controverted 
causes of religion. And a person that comes to know much, 
had need carefully bethink himself that he oppose not known 
truth agaimst the Church that made him a Christian.” For 
salvation may be in the Church of Rome, and yet they not 
find it that make surest of it. Here A.C. is as confident as 
the Jesuit himself, “That I said expressly, ‘ that the lady 
might be saved in the Roman faith.” Truly, it is too long 
since now for me to speak any more than I have already, upon 
my memory; but this I am sure of, that whatsoever I said 
of her, were it never so particular, yet was it under the 
conditions before expressed. 


ΖΞ. I bade her mark that. 


%. I.—This answer, I am sure, troubles not you; but it 
seems you would fain have it lay a load of envy upon me, 
that you profess you bade the lady so carefully “ mark that.” 
Well, you bade her “mark that.” For what? For some 
great matter? or for some new? Not for some new, sure. 
For the Protestants have ever been ready, for truth, and 
in charity, to grant as much as might be. And, therefore, 
from the beginning, “many learned men” granted this. 


ὁ Cave ne dum vis alium notare 
culpe, ipse noteris calumniz. —§8. 


bonum Christianum, atque etiam illine 
ad nos devenisse. [Quippe fatemur, 


Hier. lib. iii. advers. Pelagianos. [The 
present Editor has not been able to 
verify this quotation. | 

f (Et Lutherus, jam heereticus ex- 
istens, sic seribit in libro contra Ana- 
baptistas, qui in odium papee rejiciunt 
baptismum parvulorum:] Nos, [in- 
quit,| fatemur, sub papatu plurimum 
esse boni Christiani, immo omne 


in papatu veram esse Scripturam sa- 
cram, verum baptismum, verum sacra- 
mentum altaris, veras claves ad remis- 
sionem peccatorum, verum preedicandi 
officium, verum Catechismum, ut sunt, 
oratio Dominica, decem  precepta, 
articuli Fidei. Dico insuper, sub 
papatu veram Christianitatem, immo 
verum nucleum Christianitatis. |—Lu- 


may be had in the Roman Catholic Communion. 


So that you needed not have put such a serious “ Mark 
that !”? upon my speech, as if none before had, or none 


but I would speak it. 


ther. contra Anabaptistas, citante Bel- 
larmino, de Notis Ecclesiz, lib. iv. cap. 
16. ὃ penult. [Op., tom. ii. col. 217. 
C.J—And, [‘‘ Because some men per- 
haps will think, that we yield more 
unto our adversaries now than formerly 
we did, in that we acknowledge the 
Latin or Western Churches subject to 
Romish tyranny before God raised up 
Luther, to have been the true Churches 
of God, in which a saving profession 
of the truth in Christ was found, and 
wherein Luther himself received his 
Christianity, ordination and power of 
ministry, I will first show that all our 
best and most renowned divines did 
ever acknowledge as much as I have 
written.” |— Field, [Of the Church, ] Ap- 
pendix, partiii. ch. 2. [p. 880. ed. Ox- 
ford, 1628: and he proceeds, after 
citing the passages from Luther, 
Philip duPlessis-Mornay, Calvin, which 
Laud quotes, to show that the same 
view was maintained by Bucer, Me- 
lanchthon and Beza. |—And, | “ For this 
particular they have not well heeded 
that charitable profession of zealous 
Luther, Nos fatemur, ὅθ. No man, 
I trust, will tear that fervent spirit’s 
too much excess of indulgence ; under 
the papacy may be as much good as 
itself is evil; neither do we censure 
that Church for what it hath not, but 
for what it hath. Fundamental truth 
is like Maronian wine, which if it be 
mixed with twenty times as much 
water, holds its strength,” &c. |—Jo- 
seph Hall, Bishop of Exeter, The Old 
Religion : [a Treatise wherein is laid 
down the true state of the difference 
between the Reformed and loman 
Church, &¢.] ch. 1. [pp. 6, 7. ed. Lon- 
don, 1686. |—And, |‘* And this is our 
judgment touching) many [other, both 
before and after the time of St. Bernard, 
that] holding Christ the foundation 
aright, and groaning under the [heavy] 
burthen of [human traditions, satisfac- 
tion, and other] popish trash, [they] 
by a general repentance [from their 
errors and lapses, knowne and un- 
knowne] and [by an] assured faith in 
their Saviour, did find favour with the 
Lord.”—Dr. Geo. Abbot, late Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, Answer to Hill; 
ad Ration. 1. ὃ 30. []. 6. The Reasons 
which Dr. Hill hath brought for the 


And if your “ Mark that!” were 


upholding of Papistry, &c. unmasked, 
&e. p. 61. ed. Oxford, 1604.]—And, 
“For mine own part I dare not 
[hereuponj deny the possibility of 
their salvation, which have been the 
chiefest instrument of ours,” &c.— 
Hooker, in his Discourse of Justifica- 
tion, [Sermon ii.] ὃ 17. [ Works, vol. 
ili. p. 626. ed. Keble. |—And, “ In for- 
mer times a man might hold the ge- 
neral doctrine of those Churches, 
wherein our fathers lived, and be 
saved, [though the assertions of some 
men were damnable].... And yet 
since the Council of Trent some are 
found in it in such degree of orthodoxy, 
as we may well hope of their salva- 
tion.” —Field, [Of the Church,] book 
111. ch. 47. [p. 175. ]—And, “ The Latin 
or Western Church, subject to the 
Romish tyranny, was a true Church, 
in which a saying profession of the 
truth of Christ was found.”—Joseph 
Hall, Bishop of Exeter, the Old Reli- 
gion, in fin. in his Advertisement to 
the Reader, p. 202. — And, [Hine 
igitur Dei misericordia factum esse 
colligimus, ut] non pauci Christum 
fundamentum [illud, ac quo loqui- 
tur Apostolus,| retinerent, [ab An- 
tichristo licet concussum ac pro virili 
subversum fuisset. |—Tractat. de Eccle- 
sia, [quo preecipuee que hoe nostro 
tempore agitate: fuerunt questiones 
excutiuntur.—Phil.] Mornzeo [Pless. 
auctore, | cap. ix. in fin. [p. 442. ed. Le 
Preux, 1619.]|—Inter sordes [autem] 
istas, ista qua summo cum peri- 
culo expectetur salus, non ipsorum 
additamentis, sed iis que nobiscum 
habent communia fundamentis est at- 
tribuenda.—Joann. Prideaux, Lection. 
ix. in fin. [ Viginti-duz Lectiones de 
totidem religionis capitibus se prout 
publice habebantur Oxonize in Vespe- 
riis, ἄς, ed. Oxon. 1648. p. 148.1--- 
| Nam ] Papa aliquam adhue religionis 
formam relinquit: spem vitee zternee 
non tollit: [docet timendum esse 
Deum: aliquod statuit boni et mali 
discrimen: Christum verum Deum 
atque hominem agnoscit, aliquid 
auctoritatis tribuit Verbo Dei.]—Cal- 
vin. Instructio adv. Libertinos, cap. iv. 
[Op., tom. vii. p. 377. col. 1. ed. Am- 
stelod. 1667. | 


315 


SECTION 


XXXYV. 


316 


To leave Ch. of ΕΠ. for Ch.of R.is to prefer uncertainty to certainty. 


Conrerence not for some new matter, was it for some great? Yes, 
WITH . . 
Fisurr, Sure, it was. For what greater than salvation? But then, 


I pray, mark this too, That “might be saved” grants but 
a possibility, no sure or safe way to salvation. The possi- 
bility, I think, cannot be denied—the ignorants especially, 
because they hold the foundation, and cannot survey the 
building. And the foundation can deceive no man that 
rests upon it. But a “secure” way they cannot go, that 
hold with such corruptions, when they know them. Now, 
whether it be wisdom, in such a point as salvation is, to 
forsake a Church, in the which the “ground of salvation 
is firm,” to follow a Church “in which it is but possible 
one may be saved,’—but very probable he may do worse, if 
he look not well to the foundation—judge ye. I am sure 
S. Augustine thought it was not, and “ judged it a great sin, 
in point of salvation, for a man to prefer incerta certis, 
‘uncertainties and naked possibilities before an evident 
and certain course.’’** And Bellarmine is of opinion, and 
that in the point of justification, “That in regard of the 
uncertainty of our own righteousness, and of the danger of 
vain-glory, tutissimum est, ‘it is safest,’ to repose our whole 
trust in the mercy and goodness of God.”! And, surely, 
if there be one safer way than another, as he confesses there 
is, he is no wise man, that in a matter of so great moment 
will not betake himself to the safest way. And, therefore, 








5 Here A.C. gets another snatch, 
and tells us, “ That to grant a possi- 
bility of salvation in the Roman 
Church, is the free confession of an 
adversary, and therefore is of force 
against us, and extorted by truth: but 
to say that salvation is more securely 
and easily to be had in the Protestant 
faith, that is but their partial opinion 
in their own behalf, and of no force, 
especially with Roman Catholics.” 
I easily believe this latter part, That 
this, as A. C. and the rest use the 
matter with their proselytes, shall be 
of little or no force with Roman Ca- 
tholics. But it will behove them 
that it be of force. For let any indif- 
ferent man weigh the necessary requi- 
sites to salvation, and he shall find 
this no partial opinion, but very plain 
and real verity, That the Protestant, 
living according to his belief, is upon 


the safer way to heaven. And as for 
my confession, let them enforce it as 
far as they can against me, so they 
observe my limitations ; which if they 
do, A. C. and his fellows will, of all 
the rest, have but little comfort in 
such a limited possibility. 

h (Quanquam etiam si dubium ha- 
beret, non illic recte accipi quod in 
Catholica recte accipi certum haberet, | 
graviter peccaret, in rebus ad salutem 
animee pertinentibus, vel eo solo quod 
certis incerta preeponeret.—S. Augus- 
tin. de Baptism. cont. Donatist. lib. i. 
cap. 8. [Op., tom. ix. col. 82. D.] 

i Sit tertia propositio: Propter 
incertitudinem proprie justitie, et 
periculum inanis gloriz, tutissimum 
est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei mise- 
ricordia et benignitate reponere.— 
Bellarmin. de Justif. lib. v. cap. 7. 
§ [20. Op., tom. iv. col. 1095. A.] 


The alleged “ greater security ” of R. C. Communion denied. 


even you yourselves, in the point of “ condignity of merit,” 
though you write it and preach it boisterously to the people, 
yet you are content to die—renouncing the condignity of all 
your own merits, and trust to Christ’s. Now, surely, if you 
will not venture to die as you live, live and believe in time 
as you mean to die. 

II.—And one thing more, because you bid “ mark this,” 
let me remember to tell you for the benefit of others. Upon 
this very pomt—“ That we acknowledge an honest ignorant 
Papist may be saved,”’—you, and your like, work upon the 
advantage of our charity, and your own want of it, to abuse 
the weak. For thus, I am told, you work upon them :— 
“You see the Protestants, at least many of them, confess 
there may be salvation in our Church: We absolutely deny 
there is salvation in theirs: Therefore it is safer to come to 
ours, than to stay in theirs ;— to be where almost all grant 
salvation, than where the greater part of the world deny it.” 
This argument is very prevailing with men that cannot 
weigh it, and with women especially, that are put in fear by 
violent, though causeless, denying heaven unto them. And 
some of your party, since this, have set out a book, called 
* Charity Mistaken,” But beside the “ Answer’?! fully given 


k And this piece of cunning to af- 
fright the weak was in use in Justin 
Martyr’s time. Quosdam scimus &c. 
ad iracundiam suam Evangelium per- 
trahentes &c. quibus si potestas ea 
obtigisset ut nonnullos gehenne tra- 
derent, orbem quoque universum 
consumpsissent.—| Pseudo-] 8. Justin. 
Martyr. Epist. ad Zenam et Serenum, 
[apud Op., 8. Just. Martyr. p. 409. B. 
ἤδη δέ Twas ἴσμεν, κατὰ τὸ σαρκικὸν ἐν 
προκοπῇ γινομένους, ἕλκοντας πρὸς τὴν 
ἑαυτῶν ὀργὴν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ βουλο- 
μένους ἐφαρμόζειν τῷ δόγματι τῆς κατα- 
φορᾶς αὐτὼν τὰ λόγια τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν" 
οἷς εἰ ἀποβεβήκει τὸ δύνασθαι ἐν γεέννῃ 
παραδιδόναι τινὰς, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἂν ὅλος 
ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν κατηνάλωτο.) And here it 
is: adtracundiam suam Ecclesiam 
pertrahentes, &c. 

' (“Charity Mistaken; with the 
want thereof Catholicks are unjustly 
charged, for affirming, as they do with 
grief, that Protestancy unrepented 
destroies Salvation. — Printed with 
Licence, anno 1630.” This work was 
written by “a certain Jesuit known 


sometimes by the name of Edward 
Knott, and sometimes by that of 
Nicholas Smith, and at other times by 
Matthew Wilson, which was his true 
name.” (Wood, Athenz Oxonienses, 
sub voc. Christopher Potter.) The 
“ Answer fully given to it” was “ Want 
of Charity justly charged on all such 
Romanists, as dare (without truth or 
modesty) affirme that Protestancie 
destroyeth salvation,” Oxon. 1633, by 
Dr. Christopher Potter, Provost of 
Queen’s College. “ Which book being 
perused by Dr. Laud, Archb. of Can- 
terbury, he (see Canterburie’s Doome, 
pp. 251, 252) caused some matters 
therein to be omitted in the next im- 
pression, London, 1634. But before 
it was quite printed Knott put out a 
book, ‘ Mercy and Truth ; or, Charity 
maintained by Catholiques,’ ” &c. 1634. 
It was in answer to Knott that Chil- 
lingworth wrote “The Religion of 
Protestants.” Cf. Laud's History of his 
Chancellorship of Oxford, Wharton’s 
Remains, vol. ii. p. 142.] 


31 


SEoTION 


-~ 


4 


XXXY. 


318 The argument of greater security rests on groundless assuinpiions, 


Coxrerence to it, this alone is sufficient to confute it: First, that in this, 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


A.C. p. 65. 
Matt. xviii. 
ive 


our “ charity,” whatever yours be, is not “mistaken,” unless 
the charity of the Church herself were mistaken in the case of 
the Donatists, as shall after appear. Secondly, even “ mis- 
taken charity,” if such it were, is far better than none at all. 
And if the “ mistaken” be ours, the “none” is yours. Yea, 
but A. C. tells us, “ That this denial of salvation is grounded 
upon charity, as were the like threats of Christ and the 
holy Fathers. For there is but one true faith, and one true 
Church ; and out of that there is no salvation. And ‘he that 
will not hear the Church, let him be as a heathen and 
a publican.’” “Therefore,” he says, ‘it is more charity to 
forewarn us of the danger by these threats, than to let us 
run into it through a false security.” It is true that there 
is but one true faith, and but one true Church; but that 
one, both faith and Church, is the Catholic Christian, not 


the particular Roman. And this Catholic Christian Church . 


he that will not both hear and obey—yea, and the particular 
Church in which he lives too, so far as it In necessaries 
agrees with the Universal—is in as bad condition as a heathen 
and a publican, and perhaps in some respects worse. And 
were we in this case, we should thank A. C. for giving us 
warning of our danger. But it is not so. For he thunders 
out all these threats, and denial of salvation, because we 
join not with the Roman Church in all things ; as if her cor- 
ruptions were part of the Catholic faith of Christ. So the 
whole passage is a mere begging of the question, and then 
threatening upon it, without all ground of reason or charity. 
In the mean time let A. C. look to himself, that in his false 
security he run not into the danger and loss of his own 
salvation, while he would seem to take such care of ours. 
But though this argument prevails with the weak, yet it is 
much stronger in the cunning, than the true force of it. 
For all arguments are very moving, that lay their ground 
upon the adversaries’ confession ;° especially if it be confessed 





m Sect. xxxv. No. 3. [Vide infra, 
p. 319.] 

n And this is proved by the Creed, 
in which we profess our belief of the 
Catholic, not of the Roman Church. 

° «This is a free confession of the 
adversaries’ argument against them- 


selves, and therefore is of force.”—A.C 
p. 64. But every confession, of adver- 
saries or others, is to be taken with its 
qualities and conditions: if you leave 
out or change these, ‘you wrong the 
confession, and then it is of no force. 
And so doth A.C here. And though 


is applied and shown to be fallacious in the case of the Donatists. 


and avouched to be true, But if you would speak truly, and 
say, “ Many Protestants, indeed, confess there is salvation 
possible to be attained in the Roman Church ; but yet' they 
say, withal, that the errors of that Church are so many (and 
some so great as weaken the foundation) ? that it is very 
hard to go that way to heaven, especially to them that have 
had the truth manifested,” the heart of this argument were 
utterly broken. Besides, the force of this argument lies 
upon two things: one directly expressed, the other but as 
upon the bye. 

I1I.—That which is expressed is, We and our adversaries 
consent, that there is salvation to some in the Roman 
Church. What! would you have us as malicious—at least, 
as rash—as yourselves are to us, and deny you so much as 
possibility of salvation? If we should, we might make you 
in some things strain for a proof; “but we have not so 
learned Christ,” as either to return evil for evil in this heady 
course, or to deny salvation to some ignorant, silly souls, 
whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among 
any part of men that profess the foundation, Christ; and 
therefore seek not to help our cause by denying this com- 
fort to silly Christians, as you most fiercely do, where you 
can come to work upon them. And this was an old trick 
of the Donatists. For in the point of baptism, Whether 


Bellarmine makes “the confession of 


own confession. Agendum est [enim 
the adversary’? a note of the true 


non de stillicidiis et fundis,] non de 


Church, [in these words: Decimater- 
tia nota est confessio adversariorum, | 
de notis Ecclesiz, lib. iv. cap. 16. 
[Op., tom. ii. col. 216. D.] Yet in 
the very beginning, where he lays his 
ground, § 1, he lays it in a plain fal- 
lacy a secundum quid ad simpliciter. 
[The words which follow the above 
are: Tanta enim est vis veritatis, ut 
etiam adversarios cogat interdum sibi 
testimonium dare.... Jam nusquam 
inveniuntur Catholici laudasse, aut 
approbasse doctrinam, aut vitam ullo- 
rum ethnicorum, aut hereticorum. 
Scimus enim, unam tantum esse veram 
fidem, et sine ea nullam esse veram 
justitiam. Itaque nos constanter asse- 
rimus, errare omnes, qui doctrinam 
nostram non sequuntur. At non ea 
de nobis loquuntur Pagani, Judei, 
Turcee, Heeretici.— Ibid. | 

P For they are no mean differences 
that are between us, by Bellarmine’s 


rebus levibus, { quee parum refert utrum 
sic an aliter se haberent, non de 
metaphysicis subtilitatibus]...sed [de 
Deo, de Christo, de Ecclesia, de sacra- 
mentis, de Justificatione, de auxilio 
gratiee, de arbitrii libertate, deque aliis 
permultis] gravissimis [ae difficilli- 
mis |_queestionibus que ad ipsa fidei 
pertinent fundamenta, &c.—Bellarm. 
in preefat. Operibus preefixa, § 3. And 
therefore the errors in them, and the 
corruptions of them,cannot be of small 
consequence, by your own confession. 
Yes, by your own indeed. For you, 
A. C., say full as much, if not more 
than Bellarmine. Thus: “ We Catho- 
lics hold all points, in which Protest- 
ants differ from us in doctrine of faith, 
to be fundamental, and necessary to 
be believed, or at least not denied.”— 
A. C, Relation of the first Conference, 
p. 28. 


319 


SECTION 
XXXV. 


Ne bye Gaerne 
caret Kidit. 
1686. | 


320 


On this ground Romanists ought 


Conrerence that sacrament was true in the Catholic Church, or in the 


WITH 
Fisumr. 


part of Donatus, they exhorted all to be baptized among 
them. Why? Because both parts granted, that baptism 
was true among the Donatists; which that peevish sect 
most unjustly denied the sound part, as S. Augustine 4 
delivers it. I would ask now, Had not the orthodox true 
baptism among them, because the Donatists denied it in- 
juriously ? or should the orthodox, against truth, have 
denied baptism among the Donatists, either to ery quittance 
with them, or that their argument might not be the stronger 
because both parts granted? But, “mark this,’ how far 
you run from all common principles of Christian peace, 
as well as Christian truth, while you deny salvation most 
unjustly to us, from which you are farther off yourselves. 
Besides, if this were, or could be made, a concluding argu- 
ment, I pray, Why do not you believe with us in the point 
of the Eucharist? For all sides agree in the faith of the 
Church of England, That in the most Blessed Sacrament, the 
worthy receiver is, by his faith," made spiritually partaker 


4 Hsse vero Baptismum apud Dona- 
tistas, et illi asserunt, et nos concedi- 
mus.—[S. Augustin.] de Bapt. cont. 
Donat. lib. i. cap. 3. [Op., tom. ix. 
col. 81. ἘΠῚ 

τ Corpus Christi [datur, accipitur, 
et] manducatur in coena, tantum 
ceelesti et spirituali ratione. Medium 
autem quo corpus Christi accipitur, et 
manducatur in coena, fides est.—Ecel. 
Anglican. Art. XXVIII.—[“ These 
words, as every man may see plainly, 
make nothing for adoration of the 
sacrament, but for spiritual reverence 
to be given to Christ, of them that 
come to receive the sacrament; by 
which we are assured, if we come 
worthily, that we are made partakers 
of the very body and blood of Christ, ] 
after a spiritual manner, by faith on 
our behalf, and by the working of the 
Holy Ghost, on the behalf of Christ.” 
—Fulke, [on the Rhemish Testament, 
&c.]on 1 Cor. xi. [Annot. 18.] p. 526. 
{ed. London, 1633. 1—Christus se eum 
bonis suis omnibus in [sacra] ecena 
offert, et nos fide Eum recipimus, &c.— 
Calvin. Instit. lib.iv.cap. xvii. § 5. [Op., 
tom. v. p. 365. col. 2.|—And, [Take 
therefore that wherein all agree.... 
It is on all sides plainly confessed, 
first, that this sacrament is a true and 





a real participation of Christ, who 
thereby imparteth Himself, even His 
whole entire person as a mystical 
Head, unto every soul that receiveth 
Him; and that every such receiver 
doth thereby incorporate or unite 
himself unto Christ as a mystical 
member of Him... Secondly, that 
to whom the person of Christ is thus 
communicated, to him He giveth, by 
the same sacrament, His Holy Spirit 
to sanctify them.... Thirdly, that 
what merit, force, and virtue soever 
there is in His sacrificed body and 
blood, we freely, fully, and wholly 
have it by this sacrament. Fourthly, 
that the effect thereof in us, is a real 
transmutation of our souls and bodies 
from sin to righteousness... Christ 
assisting this heavenly banquet with 
His personal and true presence, doth, 
by His own divine power, add to the 
natural substance thereof superna- 
tural efficacy, which addition to the 
nature of those consecrated elements, 
changeth them and maketh them 
that unto us that which otherwise 
they could not be; that to us they 
are thereby made such instruments as 
mystically yet truly, invisibly yet 
really work our communion or fellow- 
ship with the person of Jesus Christ, 


— 


—————— eee 


to accept the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist ; 


of the “true and real Body and Blood of Christ, truly and 


really,’’’ and of all the benefits of His passion. 


Your Roman 


Catholics add a manner of this His presence, “'Transubstan- 
tiation,” which many deny; and the Lutherans, a manner 
of this presence, “ Consubstantiation,” which more deny. If 
this argument be good, then, even for this consent, it is 
safer communicating with the Church of England than with 
the Roman or Lutheran ; because all agree in this truth, not 


in any other opinion. 


Nay, Suarez himself, and he a very 


learned adversary, (What say you to this, A. C.? doth truth 
force this from him?) confesses plainly, ‘“ That to believe 


transubstantiation, is not simply necessary to salvation. 


as well in that He is man as God, our 
participation also in the fruit, grace, 
and efficacy of His body and blood, 
whereupon there seemeth a kind of tran- 
substantiation in us,” &c.]—Hooker, 
[ Heel. Polit.] Book v. ch. lxvii. p.176. 
[δ 7, 11. Works, vol. ii. pp. 452, 456.] 
And say not you the same with us? 
Spiritualis manducatio, que per ani- 
mam sit, ad Christi carnem in sacra- 
mento [existentem] pertingit.—Ca- 
jetan. Opuse. [tom. 1.1 de Eucharist. 
Tract. 11. cap. 5. [p. 144.] — Ad 
primum [ergo dicendum..... quod 
Augustinus dicens, (in Ps. xeviii.) 
Non hoe corpus quod videtis man- 
ducaturi estis : non intendit exclu- 
dere veritatem corporis Christi: sed 
quod non erat manducandum in hac 
specie, in qua ab eis videbatur. Per 
hoe autem quod subdit, Sacramen- 
tum quod vobis commendavit spi- 
ritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos; 
non intendit quod corpus Christi sit 
in hoe sacramento solum secundum 
mysticam significationem, sed |spiritu- 
aliter [dici,] id est, invisibiliter, et 
per virtutem Spiritus Sancti. — S. 
Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 3. 
Q[uzest.] Ixxv.. A[rtic.] 1. ad 1.— 
[Unde, Salmero hic bene ait: A 
typo vero probat eos, qui manent in 
Judaicis ritibus, non posse Christum 
manducare: nam] spiritualiter man- 
ducandus est per fidem et charitatem, 
[ut utilis sit esus ad salutem.]—Tena, 
in Hebr. xiii. Difficultate viii. [p. 710. 
col. 2. Comment. et Dissert. in Epistol. 
1). Pauli ad Hebreeos, auctore D. 
Ludovic. Tena, Accitano, &c. ed, 
Londin, 1661.) 

5.1 would have no man troubled at 
the words, “truly and really ;” for 


VOL, II,— LAUD. 


221 


that blessed sacrament, received as it 
ought to be, doth “truly and really ” 
exhibit and apply the body and the 
blood of Christ to the receiver. So 
Bishop White: [“ Secondly, the Eucha- 
rist is a divine instrument and seal 
authentical, really applying the body 
and blood of Christ to every worthy re- 
ceiver for the remission of sins, and the 
impetrating of spiritual and worldly 
blessings,”] in his Defence against 
J. W. P. ed. London, 1617. p. 138. 
[The Orthodox Faith and Way to 
the Church, &c, by Dr. Francis 
White, elder brother to Dr. John 
White, in answer to a Treatise, White 
Dyed Black, written against Dr. John 
White, &c., p. 157. 2nd edition, 
London, 1624.|—And, [Nam si Man 
spiritualis erat cibus, sequitur non 
figuras mutas ostentari nobis in sacra- 
mentis: sed rem figuratam simul] 
vere dari: [neque enim fallax est 
Deus qui figmentis inanibus nos 
lactet. Signum quidem est signum, 
substantiamque suam retinet..... 
veritatem et figuram quas Deus con- 
junxit, separare non est nostrum.]| 
—Calvin. in 1 Cor. x. 3. [Op., tom. 
vi. p. 169. col. 1.7 And again, Neque 
enim mortis tantum ac resurrectionis 
suze beneficium nobis offert Christus, 
sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est, et 
resurrexit. Concludo, realiter, (ut 
vulgo loquuntur) hoc est, vere nobis 
in coena dari Christi corpus, ut sit 
animis nostris in cibum salutarem.— 
[Id.] in 1 Cor. xi. 24. [Op., tom. vi. 
ἘΣ 182. col. 2. | 

τ [Quis enim dicat, Concilium Tri- 
dentinum docuisse, aut ad suam 
doctrinam tradendam  supposuisse, 
quamcunque substantiarum commu- 


Ὁ 


921 


Srcrion 


XXXYV. 


322 


Coyrrxence And yet he knew well the Church had determined it. 


WITH 
FisHer. 


Daher 
caret Vdit. 
1686.] 


Jor all agree that our doctrine is true in its extent. 


And 


Bellarmine," after an intricate, tedious, and almost inexplic- 
able discourse about an “adductive conversion,” a thing 
which neither divinity nor philosophy ever heard of till then, 
is at last forced to come to this: “ Whatsoever is concerning 
the manner and forms of speech, illud tenendum est, ‘this is 
to be held, That the conversion of the bread and wine into 
the Body and the' Blood of Christ is substantial, but after a 
secret and ineffable manner, and not like in all things to any 
natural conversion whatsoever.”* Now, if he had left out 


tationem esse yveram conyersionem 
substantialem? aut fieri non posse a 
Deo, nisi per ejusmodi conversionem 1] 
hoe [enim ] totum pendet ex principiis 
metaphysicis et philosophicis, et ad 
fidei doctrinam non est [simpliciter] 
necessarium.—Suarez. in Tert. part. 
S.Thom. [Aquin. Summ. Queest. Ixxy. 
Artic. 8.] Disput. 50. § 2. [inter Op., 
France. Suarez, tom. xviii. p. 515. col. 1. 
ed. Venet. 1747. ] 

« Ex his colligimus [ conversionem 
panis in corpus Domini non esse pro- 
ductivam, nec conservativam, sed ad- 
ductivam. Nam corpus Domini pre- 
existit ante conversionem, sed non 
sub speciebus panis: conversio igi- 
tur non facit, ut corpus Christi 
simpliciter esse incipiat, sed ut in- 
cipiat esse sub speciebus panis. Porro 
adductivam yocamus istam conversio- 
nem, non quia corpus Christi per hance 
adductionem deserat suum locum in 
ccelo, vel quia per motum localem 
hue de coelo adducatur, sed solum quia 
per eam fit ut corpus Christi, quod 
antea solum erat in coelo, jam etiam 
sit sub speciebus panis, et non solum 
sub illis sit per simplicem presen- 
tiam, sive coexistentiam, sed etiam 
per unionem quamdam, qualis erat 
inter substantiam panis, et accidentia 
panis, excepta tamen inherentia. |— 
Bellarmin. de [Sacrament.] Eucharist. 
lib. iii. cap. 18. (Op., tom. iii. col. 
618. B.] 

* [Eodem libro, (sc. de Eucharist. 
lib.) iii. cap. 18. dixi, Conversionem 
panis in corpus Christi, non esse pro- 
ductivam, sed adductivam. Quod dic- 
tum video a nonnullis perperam esse 
acceptum, qui inde colligunt, hane 
non esse vere conversionem, sive 
transsubstantiationem, sed transloca- 
tionem. At, pace ipsorum, aperte 
falluntur, sicut enim conversio, et 
transsubstantiatio ad panem_perti- 


nent, non ad corpus Christi, sic etiam 
translocatio, si cui conveniret, pani 
conveniret, non corpori Christi: at 
pani nullo modo conyenit, cum non 
mutet locum, sed transeat in corpus 
Christi: sed neque corpus Christi per 
conversionem adductivam translocari 
dici potest, cum neque deserat locum 
suum in ccelo, neque incipiat esse sub 
speciebus, ut in loco, sed ut substantia 
sub accidentibus, remota tamen in- 
heerentia. Itaque adductivam con- 
versionem appellavimus, ut significa- 
remus corpus Christi per consecratio- 
nem Lucharistize non produci de 
novo, sed preeexistere, et per con- 
versionem panis in ipsum, incipere 
esse sub speciebus panis. At, in- 
quiunt, aliqui patres dicunt corpus 
Christi fieri, vel etiam creari per 
verba consecrationis, ut patet ex 
Ambrosio, lib. iv. de sacramentis, 
cap. 4. et Hieronymo in Epist. i. 
ad Heliodorum. MRespondeo: Nullus 
patrum dicit corpus Christi fieri, vel 
creari absolute per verba consecra- 
tionis, sed fieri ex pane, vel per con- 
secrationem, id est, fieri, ut sub 
speciebus panis non sit amplius panis, 
sed corpus Christi: neque desunt alii 
patres, qui quo ad modum loquendi, 
videntur probare adductionem, ut 
patet ex Chrysostomo, lib. 111. de 
Sacerdotio : et Gregorio, lib. iy. 
Dialogorum, cap. 57. et sanctus Bo- 
naventura in ΠΥ. Sent. Dist. x. par. ii. 
Art. i. Queest. 1. expresse dicit, In 
transsubstantiatione fieri, ut quod 
erat alicubi, sine sui mutatione sit 
alibi; et Queest. 2. dicit, Per transsub- 
stantiationem corpus Christi non fieri, 
quia factum est in conceptione.] Sed 
quicquid sit de modis loquendi, illud 
tenendum est, ,;conversionem panis et 
vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi, 
esse substantialem, sed arcanam, et 
ineffabilem, et nullis naturalibus con- 


The principle argued from does not always hold good, 323 


“conversion,” and affirmed only Christ’s ‘real presence” Srcriox 
there, after a mysterious, and indeed an ineffable, manner, no pees. 
man could have spoken better. And therefore, if you will force 
the argument always to make that the safest way of salva- 
tion which differing parties agree on, why do you not yield 
to the force of the same argument in the belief of the sacra- 
ment, one of the most immediate means of salvation, where 
not only the most, but all, agree; and your own greatest 
clerks cannot tell what to say to the contrary ? 

IV.—I speak here for the force of the argument, which A.C. p. 64. 
certainly in itself is nothing, though by A. C. made of great 
For he says, It is a confession of adversaries 
Just as Petilian the DonatistY bragged 
in the case of baptism. But in truth, it is nothing; for the 1 [The text 
syllogism which it frames, is this: “In point of faith an eect 
salvation, it is safest for a man to take that way, which the of 1673, 


: d 1686. 
But Papists and Protestants, if ἘΠ ἽΝ 


differing parties agree on. 

which are the differing parties, agree in this, That there is Edition of 
: : ὃ 1639, the 

salvation possible to be found in the Roman Church. There- first two 


fore, it is safest for a man to be and continue in the Roman oa 


Church.”! 'To the minor? proposition, then, I observe, this ment are 
only :* That though many learned Protestants grant this, all Tee 


account. 
extorted by truth. 


do not. And then that proposition is not universally true,’ aoe 
. . . “ΠΟΙ 
nor able to sustain the conclusion. For they do not in ὉΠ15 ᾿ Bait. 


all agree; nay, I doubt not but there are some Protestants, ἀπ Ἐπ 


which can, and do, as stiffly and as churlishly deny them first .... 


salvation, as they do us. And A. C. should do well to con- eg 


sider, whether they do it not upon as good reason at least. * ΠΡῸΣ 
sal, nor... 


But for the major’ proposition; namely, ‘That in point of gait. 


faith and salvation, it is safest for a man to take that way 5 κι 
which the adversary confesses, or the differing parties agree for the 


on.” I say, that is no metaphysical principle, but a bare jai.” 


contingent proposition; and, being indefinitely taken, may 1639.] 


versionibus per omnia similem, [et 
quam solus Deus facere potest, qui 
solus in totam entis naturam, ut 
sanctus Thomas loquitur, (Summ.) 
par. 3. Queest. Ixxy. Art. 4. absolutam 
potestatem habet.] — Bellarmin. in 
Recognit. hujus loci, [Opp. preefix. 
tom. i.) — And, Vide [infra,] Sect. 
xxxvili. No. 3. 

y Sed quia ita magnum firmamen- 


tum vyanitatis vestre in hac sententia 
esse arbitramini, wt ad hoc tibi ter- 
minandam putares epistolam, quo 
quasi recentius in animis legentium 
remaneret, breviter respondeo, &c.— 
S. Augustin. contra Lit. Petil. lib. 11. 
cap. 108. [Op., tom. ix. col. 296. A.] 
And here A.C. ad hoe sibi putavit 
terminandam collationem : sed frustra 
ut apparebit, No. 6. [vide infra, p. 335. } 

re DO 


ἕω 


324 as shown in the instunces alleged above. 


Conrerence be true or false, as the matter is to which it is applied, but, 
Fruer, being taken universally, is false, and not’ able to lead in the 
Terres conclusion. Now that this proposition, “In point of faith and 
he true or salvation, it is safest for a man to take that way which the 
ee differing parties agree on, or which the adversary confesses,” 
is towhich hath no strength in itself, but is sometimes true and some- 
ea ad times false, as the matter is about which it is conversant, is 
ἀράν most evident. First, By reason: because consent of disagree- 
truth in ing parties, is neither rule, nor proof of truth. For Herod and 
a nm’ Pilate, disagreeing parties enough, yet agreed against truth 
Rdit. Itself. But truth rather is, or should be, the rule to frame, if 
a not to force, agreement. And secondly, By the two instances 
before given.* For in the instance between the orthodox 

Church then, and the Donatists, this proposition is most 

false; for it was a point of faith, and so of salvation, that 

they were upon—namely, the right use and administration 

of the sacrament of Baptism. And yet had it been safest to 

take up that way which the differing parts agreed on, or 

which the adverse part confessed, men must needs have gone 

with the Donatists against the Church. And this must fall 

out as oft as any heretic will cunningly take that way against 

the Church which the Donatists did, if this principle shall 

go for current. But in the second instance, concerning the 
Eucharist, a matter of faith, and so of salvation too, the same 
proposition is most true. And the reason is, because here 

the matter is true—namely, “The true and real participation 

of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Blessed Sacrament.” 

But in the former the matter was false—namely, That 
rebaptization was necessary after baptism formally given 

by the Church. So this proposition—“ In point of faith and 
salvation, it is safest for a man to take that way which the 

ἡ (on...+ differing parties agree in,” or which the adversary confesses,” 
eee —is, you see, both true and false, as men have cunning to 
1686.] apply it, and as the matter is about which it is conversant ; 
and is, therefore, no proposition able or fit to settle a con- 

clusion in any sober man’s mind, till the matter contained 

under it be well scanned and examined. And yet, as much 

use as you would make of this proposition to amaze the 

weak, yourselves dare not stand to it—no, not where the 


* Sect. xxxv. No. 3. [vide supra, p. 319.] 








These instances shown to apply to the present case. 325 


matter is undeniably true, as shall appear in divers par- ΡῈ Ὁ 
ticulars beside this of the Eucharist. eee 
V.—But before I add any other particulfr instances, 
I must tell you what A. C. says to the two former. For he A.C. p. 65. 
tells us, “These two are nothing lke the present case.” 
Nothing? That is strange indeed. Why, in the first of 
those cases concerning the Donatists, your proposition 15 
false ; and so far from being “ safest,” that it was no way 
safe for aman to take that way of belief, and so of salvation, 
which both parts agreed on. And is this nothing? Nay, 
is not this full and home to the present case? For the 
present case is this, and no more: “ That it is safest taking 
that way of belief which the differing parties agree on, or 
which the adversary confesses.” And in the second of those 
cases, concerning the Eucharist, your proposition mdeed is 
true, not by the truth which it hath seen' in itself, metaphy- 1 [seen... 
sically and in abstract, but only in regard of the matter as i 
to which it is applied; yet there you desert your own propo- 1673, and 
sition, where it is true. And is this nothing? Nay, is not ey 
this also full and home to the present case, since it appears 
your proposition is such as yourselves dare not bide by, 
either when it is true or when it is false? For in the case 
of baptism administered by the Donatist, the proposition is 
false, and you dare not bide by it, for truth’s sake. And 
in the case of the Eucharist, the proposition is true, and yet 
you dare not bide by it, for the Church of Rome’s sake. 
So that Church, with you, cannot err, and yet will not suffer 
you to maintain truth; which not to do is some degree of 
error, and that no small one. 
VI.—Well, A.C. goes on, and gives his reasons why these A.C. p. 65. 
two instances are nothing like the present case. “ For in 
these cases,” saith he, “there are annexed other reasons of 
certainly known peril of damnable schism and heresy, which 
we should incur by consenting to the Donatists’ denial of 
true baptism among Catholics: and to the Protestants’ 
denial, or doubting of, the true substantial presence of Christ 
in the Eucharist. But in this case of resolving to live and 
die in the Catholic Roman Church, there is confessedly no 
such peril of any damnable heresy, or schism, or any other 


sin.” Here I have many particulars to observe upon A. C., 


326 


Protestants believe a true substantial Presence of Christ, 


Conrerrnce and you shall have them as briefly as I can set them 


WITH 
Fisuerr. 


(1.) 


A.C, p. 65. 


(3.) 


ARC. p. 66. 


down. 

And, first®I take A.C. at his word, that in the case of 
the Donatist, should it be followed, there would be known 
peril of damnable schism and heresy, by denying true baptism 
to be in the orthodox Church. For by this you may see 
what a sound proposition this is—“ That where two parties 
are dissenting, it is safest believing that in which both parties 
agree, or which the adversary confesses,’—for here, you may 
see by the case of the Donatist, is confessed, it may lead 
a man, that will universally lean to it, into “known” and 
“damnable schism and heresy.” An excellent guide, I 
promise you, this, is it not? 

Nor, secondly, are these, though A.C. calls them so, 
“annexed reasons ;” for he calls them so but to blanch the 
matter, as if they fell upon the proposition ab extra, “ acci- 
dentally, and from without ;” whereas they are not annexed, 
or pmned on, but flow naturally out of the proposition itself. 
For the proposition would seem to be metaphysical, and is 
apphiable indifferently to any common belief of dissenting 
parties, be the point in difference what it will. Therefore, 
if there be anything heretical, schismatical, or any way evil, 
in the poimt, this proposition, being neither universally 
nor necessarily true, must needs cast him that relies upon 
it, upon all these rocks of heresy, schism, or whatever else 
follows the matter of the proposition. 

Thirdly, A, C. doth extremely ill to join these cases 
of the Donatists for baptism, and the Protestant for the 
Eucharist, together, as he doth. For this proposition, in the 
first, concerning the Donatists, leads a man, as is confessed 
by himself, into “known and damnable schism and _he- 
resy:” but by A.C.’s good leave, the latter, concerning the 
Protestants and the Eucharist, nothing so. For I hope A.C. 
dare not say, that to believe the true substantial* presence 


a Ceeterum his absurditatibus sub- 


cipere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum 
latis, quicquid ad exprimendam ve- 


vite seterne intelligantur.]— Calvin. 


ram substantialemque corporis ac san- 
guinis Domini communicationem, que 
sub sacris Coenee symbolis fidelibus 
exhibetur, facere potest, libenter reci- 
pio: [atque ita ut non imaginatione 
duntaxat aut mentis intelligentia per- 


Instit. lib. iv. cap. 17. §19. [Op., tom. 
viii. p. 370.]—[Dico igitur,] in Coenze 
mysterio, per symbola panis et vini 
Christus vere nobis exhiberi, [adeo- 
que corpus et sanguinem Hjus, in 
quibus omnem obedientiam pro com- 





a true and real Presence, in the Holy Eucharist. 


of Christ is either “known or damnable schism or heresy.” 
Now, as many and as learned Protestants” believe and 
maintain this, as do believe possibility of salvation, as before 
is limited, in the Roman Church: therefore they in that not 
guilty of either “known or damnable schism, or heresy,” 
though the Donatists were of both. 

Fourthly, whereas he imposes upon the Protestants 
the “denial or doubting of the true and real presence of 
Christ in the Eucharist,” he is a great deal more bold than 
true in that also. For, understand them right, and they 
certainly neither deny nor doubt it ; for, as for the Lutherans, 
as they are commonly called, their very opinion of consub- 
stantiation makes it known to the world, that they neither 
deny nor doubt of His true and real presence there. And 
they are Protestants. And for the Calvinists, if they might 
be rightly understood, they also maintain a most true and 
real presence, though they cannot permit their judgment to 
be transubstantiated. And they are Protestants too. And 
this is s@known a truth that Bellarmine confesses it ; for he 
saith, ‘ Protestants do often grant, that the true and real 
body of Christ is in the Eucharist ;” but he adds, “That 
they never say, so far as he hath read, that it is there truly 
and really, unless they speak of the supper which shall be 
in heaven.”° Well: first, if they grant that the true and 
real Body of Christ is in that Blessed Sacrament, as Bellar- 
mine confesses they do, and it is most true, then A. C. is 
false, who charges all the Protestants with denial or doubt- 
fulness in this point. And, secondly, Bellarmine himself 
also shows here his ignorance, or his malice ;—ignorance, if 


paranda nobis justitia adimplevit : quo 
scilicet primum in unum corpus cum 
Ipso coalescamus; deinde] participes 
substantia Ejus facti, [in bonorum 
omnium communicatione virtutem 
quoque sentiamus. |—Ibid. ὃ 11. [Op., 
tom. vili. p. 367. } 

> Sect. xxxv. No.3. [ubisup. p. 319.] 

© Quinto dicit, [(se. Concilium Tri- 
dentum,) ealiter, quod opponitur 
figmento Calvinistico, qui vult adesse, 
ut fide apprehenditur. Quod etiam 
disertis verbis Zuinglius docet, in 
Confess. ad Carolum, quam citat Beza 
in libr. de Coena Dom. contra West- 
phalum, cap. 9. Ait enim Zuinglius, 
se credere in Ccena Domini verum 


Christi corpus adesse, hactenus qui- 
dem, ut fidei contemplationi sit veluti 
preesens, quod corporaliter est in 
ceelis. Itaque] Sacramentarii seepe 
dicunt, reale corpus Christi in ccena 
adesse, sed realiter adesse nunquam 
dicunt, quod legerim: nisi forte lo- 
quantur de ccena, que fit in ccelo.— 
Bellarmin. de [Sacrament.] Eucharist. 
110: ἢ ΌΡ: ἢν 5 [65 Op), atom. 11]: 
col. 395. B.] And that he means to 
brand Protestants under the name of 
Sacramentarii, is plain. For he says 
the Council of Trent opposed this 
word realiter, figmento Calvinistico, 
to the Calvinistical figment.—Ibid. 


327 


Srction 
ΧΧΧΥΣ 


(4) 


A Ca peo) 


A.C. p. 65. 


328 The English Church and our Reformers maintained the real Presence, 


CoNnFrERENCE 
WItH 
Fisuer. 


he knew it not; malice, if he would not know it. For the 
Calvinists, at least they which follow Calvin himself, do not 
only believe that the true and real Body of Christ is received 
in the Eucharist, but that it is there, and that we partake of 
it, vere et realiter, which are Calvin’s? own words; and yet 
Bellarmine boldly affirms, that, to his reading, “no one 
Protestant did ever affirm it.” And I, for my part, cannot 
believe but Bellarmine had read Calvin, and very carefully, 
he doth so frequently and so mainly oppose him. Nor can 
that place by any art be shifted, or by any violence wrested 
from Calvin’s true meaning of the “ Presence of Christ in 
and at the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist,” to any 
“supper in heaven” whatsoever. But most manifest it is, 
that quod legerim, “for aught I have read,” will not serve 
Bellarmine to excuse him. For he himself, but in the very 
chapter going before,° quotes four places out of Calvin, in 
which he says expressly, That we receive in the sacrament the 
Body and the Blood of Christ, vere, “truly.” So Calvin says 
it four times, and Bellarmine quotes the places; and yet he 
says in the very next chapter, That never any Protestant 
said so, to his reading. And for the Church of England, 
nothing is more plain, than that it believes and teaches the 
true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist ;* unless 
A.C. can make a Body no Body, and Blood no Blood—as 
perhaps he can by transubstantiation,—as well as bread no 
bread, and wine no wine. And the Church of England is 
Protestant too. So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true 
and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and then, 


4 Calvin. in 1 Cor. x. 3. vere, δια. 
et in 1 Cor. xi. 24. realiter. Vide 
supra, No. 3. [p. 321. note *. | 

¢ Secundo docet [(sc. Calvinus,) 
symbola et corpus Christi, licet loco 
inter se plurimum distent, tamen 
conjuncta esse, non solum ratione 
signi, quia unum est signum alterius, 
sed etiam, quia cum signo Deus nobis 
vere exhibet ipsum verum Christi 
corpus et sanguinem, quo anime 
nostree vere alantur in vitam eeter- 
nam. | — Bellarmin. de [Sacrament. ] 
Eucharist. lib. i. cap. 1. [Op., tom. iii. 
col. 391. C.] 

f Πρ Body of Christ is given, 
taken, and eaten in the Supper (of the 
Lord,) only after an heavenly and spiri- 


tual manner. And the means whereby 
the Body of Christ is received and 
eaten, is faith.” — Eccl. Ang. Art. 
XXVIII. So here is the manner of 
transubstantiation denied, but the 
body of Christ twice affirmed. And 
in the Prayer before Consecration, 
thus: “ Grant us, gracious Lord, so to 
eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus 
Christ, and to drink His Blood, &c.” 
—And again, in the second Prayer or 
Thanksgiving after Consecration, thus: 
“ We give Thee thanks, for that Thou 
dost vouchsafe to feed us, which have 
duly received these holy mysteries, 
with the spiritual food of the most 
precious Body and Blood of Thy Son 
our Saviour Jesus Christ,” &e. 


and only intended to oppose the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 


where is any known or damnable heresy here? ΔΒ for the 
learned of those zealous men that died in this cause in 
Queen Mary’s days, they denied not the real presence 
simply taken, but as their opposites forced transubstantia- 
tion upon them, as if that and the real presence had been 
all one. Whereas, all the ancient Christians ever believed 
the one, and none but modern and superstitious Christians 
believe the other—if they do believe it; for I, for my part, 
doubt they do not. And as for the unlearned, in those 
times and all times, their zeal (they holding the foundation) 
may eat out their ignorances, and leave them safe. Now, 
that the learned Protestants in Queen Mary’s days did not 
deny—nay, did maintain—the real presence, will manifestly 
appear. For when the commissioners obtruded to J[ohn] 
Frith, the presence of Christ’s natural body im the sacra- 
ment; and that without all figure or similitude, J[ohn] 
Frith acknowledges: “ [In that it is received it is Christ’s 
body, signifying that as verily] as the outward man re- 
ceived the sacrament with his [teeth and] mouth, so verily 
doth the inward man [through faith] receive Christ’s Body 
[and fruit of His passion, and is as sure of it as of the bread 
which he eateth.]’’ And he adds, “That neither side ought 
to make it a necessary article of [the] faith, but leave it in- 
different.” " Nay, Archbishop Cranmer comes more plainly 
and more home to it than Frith: “ For if you understand,” 
saith he, “ by this word ‘really,’ reipsa, that is, in very 
deed and effectually ; so Christ, by the grace and efficacy of 
His passion, is in deed and truly present [to all His true and 
holy members.] But if you understand by this word ‘really,’ 
corporaliter,* “ corporally,’ in His natural and organical Body, 


5. John Foxe, in Acts and Monu- 
ments of Martyrs, &c. vol. ii. p. 943. 
ed. London, 1597. [and vol. ii. p. 253. 
col. 2. ed. London, 1684 | 

h Foxe’s Acts and Monuments. [ibid. 
vol. ii. p. 254. | 

i Cranmer apud Foxe, ibid. p. 1301. 
[Acts and Monuments, vol. iii. pp. 
38, 39. ] 

k (Cranmer’s words are: “... corpo- 
rally : so that by the body of Christ is 
understood a natural body and organi- 
cal, so the first proposition doth vary 
not only from the usual speech and 
phrase of Scripture, but also is clean 


contrary to the holy word of God, and 
Christian profession.” — The “ first 
proposition” to which he alludes was: 
“In the sacrament of the altar is 
the natural Body of Christ, conceived 
of the Virgin Mary, and also His 
Blood present really under the forms 
of bread and wine, by virtue of God’s 
word pronounced by the priest.” |— 
I say corporaliter, corporally; for so 
Bellarmine hath it expressly: Sed 
tota [difficultas est, an corporaliter, 
realiter, proprie, sumatur sanguis et 
caro: an solum significative et spiri- 
tualiter.] Quod autem corporaliter et 


32 


Srorron 


9 


ΧΧΧΥ͂. 


330 


Ridley’s testimony to the presence of the “true natural Body.” 


Coyrrrexcs under the forms of bread and wine, it is contrary to the 


WITH 
FISHER. 


holy word of God.” And so likewise Bishop Ridley; nay, 
Bishop Ridley adds yet farther, and speaks so fully to this 
poimt, as I think no man can add to his expression ; and it 
is well if some Protestants except not against it. “ Both 
you and I,” saith he, “agree herein: That in the sacrament 
is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Christ, even 
that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended 
into heaven, which sitteth on the right hand of God the 
Father, which shall come from thence to judge the quick 
and the dead; only we differ in modo, ‘in the way and 
manner of being:’ we confess all one thing to be in the 
Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I 
[bemg fully by God’s word thereunto persuaded,] confess 
Christ’s natural Body to be in the sacrament [indeed] by 
spirit and grace, &. You make a grosser kind of being, 
enclosing a natural, [a lively, and a moving] Body, under the 


shape and form of bread and wine.” ! 


proprie, (sumatur sanguis et caro,) pro- 
bari potest omnibus argumentis, [qui- 
bus supra probavimus proprie esse 
intelligenda illa verba institutionis: 
Hoe est corpus, &c.|—Bellarmin. de 
Sacrament. Eucharist. lib. i. cap. 12. 
§ 6. [Op., tom. 111. col. 448. A.] And 
I must be bold to tell you more then, 
That this is the doctrine of the Church 
of Rome. For I must tell you too, 
that Bellarmine here contradicts him- 
self. For he that tells us here, that it 
can be proved by many arguments, 
that we receive the flesh and the blood 
of Christ in the eucharist corporaliter, 
said as expressly before, (had he re- 
membered it,) that thongh Christ be 
in this Blessed Sacrament vere et 
realiter, yet saith he: Tertia regula: 
[adverbia, que dicunt modum exis- 
tendi corporalem, non dicuntur de 
Christo in Eucharistia, licet dicantur 
de Ipso, ut in ccelo residet: alia vero 
nihil prohibet dici. Ratio est, quia 
... non habet Christus in Eucharistia 
modum_ existendi corporum, sed 
potius spirituum, cum sit totus 
in qualibet parte. Itaque dicemus, 
Christum esse in Eucharistia vere, 
realiter, substantialiter, ut Concilium 
(Tridentinum) recte loquitur, sed] 
non dicemus corporaliter, i.e. eo modo, 
quo suapte natura existunt corpora, 


So far, and more, 


[πος sensibiliter, mobiliter, &c.J— 
Bellarmin. de Sacrament. Eucharist. 
ibe ὉΠ ΟΠ 2.09 12s Ὁ», tome air 
col. 396. D.] So, Bellarmine here is 
in a notorious contradiction ; or else it 
will follow plainly out of him, That 
Christ in the sacrament is existent 
one way and received another, which 
is a gross absurdity. And that corpo- 
raliter was the doctrine of the Church 
of Rome, and meant by transubstan- 
tiation, is farther plain in the book 
called, The Institution of a Christian 
Man, set forth by the bishops in con- 
vocation in Henry the Eighth’s time. 
An. 1534. Cap. ‘‘ Of the sacrament of 
the altar.” The words are: “ Under 
the form and figure of bread and wine, 
the very body and blood of Christ is 
corporally, really, &c., exhibited and 
received,” &c. And Aquinas expresses 
it thus: Quia tamen substantia cor- 
poris Christi realiter non dividitur a 
sua quantitate dimensiva, et ab aliis 
accidentibus, inde est, quod ex vi realis 
concomitantize est in hoe sacramento 
tota quantitas dimensiva corporis 
Christi, et omnia accidentia ejus.— 
Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 3. 
Q[usest. | Ixxvi. A[rtic ] 4. in conclus. 

Apud Foxe, ibid. p. 1598. [Acts 
and Monuments, vol. iii. p. 420. 
col, 2.] 


——— 


How far Roman Catholics as individuals are involved in schisin. 


Bishop Ridley. And Archbishop Cranmer™ confesses that 
he was indeed of another opinion, and inclining to that of 
Zuinglius, till Bishop Ridley convinced his judgment, and 
settled him in this point. And for Calvin," he comes no 
whit short of these, against the calumny of the Romanists 
on that behalf. Now, after all this, with what face can A.C. 
say, as he doth, That Protestants deny or doubt of the “ true 
and real presence of Christ in the sacrament,” I cannot well 
tell, or am unwilling to utter. 

Fifthly, whereas it is added by A.C. “ That in this present 
case there is no peril of any damnable heresy, schism, or 
any other sin, in resolving to live and die in the Roman 
Church ;” that is not so neither: for he that lives in the 
Roman Church with such a resolution, is presumed to be- 
lieve as that Church believes; and he that doth so, I will 
not say is as guilty, but guilty he is, more or less, of the 
schism which that Church first caused by her corruptions, 
and now continues by them and her power together; and 
of all her damnable opinions too, in poimt of misbelief— 
though perhaps A. C. will not have them called heresies, 
unless they have been condemned in some General Council ; 
and of all other sins also, which the doctrine and misbelief 
of that Church leads him into. And mark it, I pray. For 
it is one thing to live in a schismatical Church, and not 
communicate with it in the schism, or in any false worship 
that attends it. For so Elias lived among the ten tribes, 
and was not schismatical; aud after him Eliseus. But 
then neither of them either countenanced the schism, or 
worshipped the calves in Dan or in Bethel. And so also, 


™{“Torant that then (whenI helped Christum a sua ccena, [nisi sub 


to burn Lambert the sacramentary,) I 
believed otherwise than I do now, and 
so I did, until my Lord of London, 
Doctor Ridley, did confer with me, 
and by sundry persuasions and autho- 
rities of doctors drew me quite from 
my opinion.”—Cranmer,]| apud Foxe, 
ibid. p. 1703. [Acts and Monuments, 
vol. 111. p. 550. col. 2. ed. London, 
1684. ] 

» [Ergo] tantum de modo questio 
est: [quia Christum ipsi in pane locant, 
nobis autem non ducimus fas esse 
Eum e ceelo detrahere....Tantum] 
facessat calumnia  filla,] auferri 


panis integumento lateat.|—Calvin. 
Institut. lib. iv. cap. 17. ὃ 31. [Op., 
tom. viii. p. 375.|—[Itaque] Verita- 
tem Dei, in qua acauiescere tuto licet, 
[hie] sine controversia amplector. 
Pronunciat [lle carnem suam _ esse 
anime mez cibum, sanguinem esse 
potum. Talibus alimentis animam 
Illi meam pascendam offero. In sacra 
[sua] coena jubet me sub symbolis 
panis ac vini corpus ac sanguinem 
suum sumere, mandueare ac bibere: 
nihil dubito, quin et Ipse vere porri- 
gat, et ego recipiam.—Calvin. ibid. 
§ 32. 


991 


SEcTION 
XXXY. 


1 Kings 
XVil. 
2 Kings iii. 


332 


Perils in the Roman Catholic communion 


Conzenencs beside these prophets, did those thousands live in a 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 





1 Kings 
κα 18: 


1 Kings 
111; We 


schismatical Church, yet “ never bowed their knee to Baal.” 
But it is quite another thing to live in a schismatical 
Church, and communicate with it in the schism, and in all 
the superstitions and corruptions which that Church teaches 
—nay, to live and die in them. For certainly here no man 
can so live in a schismatical Church; but if he be of 
capacity enough and understand it, he must needs be a 
formal schismatic, or an involved one if he understand it 
not. And in this case, the Church of Rome is either far 
worse or more cruel than the Church of Israel, even under 
Ahab and Jezebel, was. The synagogue, indeed, was corrupted 
a long time, and in a great degree; but I do not find that 
this doctrine, ‘You must sacrifice in the high places,” or 
this, “You may not go and worship at the one altar in 
Jerusalem,” was either taught by the priests, or maintained 
by the prophets, or enjoimed the people by the Sanhedrim. 
Nay, can you show me when any Jew, living there devoutly 
according to the law, was ever punished for omitting the 
one of these, or doing the other? But the Church of Rome 
hath solemnly decreed her errors; and, erring, hath yet 
decreed withal, “That she cannot err ;” and imposed upon 
learned men disputed and improbable opimions—transub- 
stantiation, purgatory, and forbearance of the cup in the 
blessed Eucharist, even against the express command of our 
Saviour; and that for articles of faith. And to keep off 
disobedience, whatever the corruption be, she hath bound 
up her decrees upon pain of excommunication, and all that 
follows upon it. Nay, this is not enough, unless the faggot 
be kindled to light them the way. This, then, may be 
enough for us to leave Rome, though the old prophet for- 
sook not Israel. And therefore in this present case there 15 
peril, great peril, of damnable both schism and heresy and 
other sin, by living and dying in the Roman faith, tainted 
with so many superstitions, as at this day it is, and their 
tyranny to boot. So that here I may answer A.C. just as 
S. Augustine® answered Petilian the Donatist, in the fore- 


° Petilianus dixit: Venite [ergo] si cum iisdem perire non _ vultis. 
ad ecclesiam populi, et aufugite tradi- Nam ut facile cognoscatis, quod [cum] 
tores, (ita Orthodoxos tum appellavit) ipsi sint rei, de fide nostra optime 


compatible with a possibility of salvation in it to individuals. 


333 


named case of baptism. For when Petilian pleaded the  Srorron 
concession of his adversaries, “ That baptism, as the Dona- 
tists administered it, was good and lawful; and thence 
inferred,” just as the Jesuit doth against me, “that it was 
better for men to join with his congregation than with the 
Church;” 5. Augustine answers: “ We do indeed approve 


among heretics baptism, but so, not as it is the baptism of 


heretics, but as it is the baptism of Christ ; just as we 
approve the baptism of adulterers, idolaters, witches, and 


yet not as it is theirs, but as it is Christ’s baptism. For 


none of these, for all their baptism, shall inherit the king- 
dom of God. And the Apostle reckons heretics among Gal. ν. 19, 


them.’’ 


And again afterwards: “It is not therefore yours,’ 


saith 5. Augustine, “ which we fear to destroy, but Christ’s ; 


which, even among the sacrilegious, is of and in itself 
Now you shall see how full this comes home to 
our Petilianist A. C., for he is one of the contracters of the 
Church of Christ to Rome, as the Donatists confined it to 
And he cries out, “That a possibility of salvation 


holy.” ? 


Africa. 


is a free confession of the adversaries, and is of force against 


them, and to be thought extorted from them by force of 
I answer: I do indeed, for my part, leaving 
other men free to their own judgment, acknowledge a 
possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. 


truth itself.’ 


But so as 


that, which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are 
Romanists, but as they are Christians; that is, as they 
believe the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ Himself, 
not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to 
the gross superstitions of the Romish Church. Nor do I 
fear to destroy quod ipsorum est, “ that which is theirs ;”” but 
yet I dare not proceed so roughly as, with theirs, or for 
theirs, to deny or weaken the foundation, which is Christ’s, 


judicent: ego illorum infectos bap- 
tizo ; illi meos, quod absit, recipiunt 
baptizatos ; quae omnino non facerent, 
si in baptismo nostro culpas aliquas 
agnovissent. Videte ergo, quod da- 
mus, quam sit sanctum, quod de- 
struere metuit sacrilegus inimicus. 
S. August. respondit.... Sic appro- 
bamus in heereticis baptismum, non 
heereticorum, sed Christi, sicut in 
fornicatoribus .... idololatris, yene- 


ficis.... approbamus baptismum, non 
eorum, sed Christi. Omnes enim 
isti, inter qnos et heeretici [positi] 
sunt, sicut dicit Apostolus: Regnum 
Dei non possidebunt, &.—S. Augus- 
tin. cont. Lit. Petiliani, lib. ii. cap. 
108. [Op., tom. ix. col. 295. F.] 

P Non ergo vestrum est quod de- 
struere metuimus, sed Christi: quod 
et in sacrilegis per se sanctum est.— 
5. Augustin. ibid. [col. 296. E.] 


XEXOXGV ee 


> 20, 21. 


A.C. pp.64, 
65. 


991 


How far ignorance of the Schism, and of its causes, excuses. 


CoxrrrFNce even among them; and which is and remains holy, even in 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


A.C. p.66. 


the midst of their superstitions. And I am willing to hope 
there are many among them, which keep within that Church, 
and yet wish the superstitions abolished which they know, 
and which pray to God to forgive their errors in what they 
know not; and which hold the foundation firm, and live 
accordingly, and which would have all things amended that 
are amiss, were it in their power. And to such I dare not 
deny a “possibility of salvation,” for that which is Christ’s 
in them, though they hazard themselves extremely by keep- 
ing so close to that, which is superstition, and, in the case 
of images, comes too near idolatry. Nor can A. C. shift 
this off by adding, “living and dying in the Roman Church.” 
For this “living and dying in the Roman Church,” as is 
before expressed, cannot take away the possibility of salva- 
tion from them which believe and repent of whatsoever is 
error or sin in them, be it sin known to them or be it not. 
But then perhaps A.C. will reply, that if this be so, I must 
then maintain, that a Donatist also, living and dying in 
schism, might be saved. To which I answer two ways. 
First, That a plain honest Donatist, having, as is confessed, 
true baptism, and holding the foundation—as, for aught I 
know, the Donatists did1—and repenting of whatever was sin 


4 For though Prateolus will make 
Donatus, and from him the Donatists, 
to be guilty of an impious heresy (1 
doubt he means Arianism, though 
he name it not,) in making the Son 
of God less than the Father, and the 
Holy Ghost less than the Son; [As- 
serebat autem impius ille minorem 
Patre Filium, et minorem Filio Sp. 
Sanctum, rebaptizans ea de causa 
Catholicos, qui ab Ecclesia ad ejus 
sectam deficiebant, dicens eos prius 
non suscepisse verum baptisma.— 
Elench. Alphabet. omnium Heresium 
&e. per Gabrielem Prateolum Marcos- 
sium, ] lib. iv. Heeres. 14. [p. 147. ed. 
Colon. 1569.] yet these things are 
most manifest out of S. Augustine 
concerning them, who lived with them 
both in time and place, and under- 
stood them and their tenets far better 
than Prateolus could. And first, S, 
Augustine tells us concerning them: 
{ Ut ergo breviter insinuem dilectioni 
tue, inter Arianorum et Donatistarum 
quid intersit errorem,| Ariani, Patris, 


et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, diversas 
substantias esse dicunt: Donatiste 
autem {non hoc dicunt, sed} unam 
Trinitatis substantiam confitentur. So 
they are no Arians. Secondly: [ Et] si 
aliqui ipsorum minorem Filium esse 
dixerunt quam Pater est; ejusdem 
tamen substantiz non negarunt. But 
this is but si aligui, “ifany”: so it was 
doubtful, this too, though Prateolus 
delivers it positively. Thirdly: Plu- 
rimi vero in eis hoe se dicunt, omnino 
credere de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu 
Sancto, quod Catholica credit Ecclesia. 
Nec ipsa cum illis vertitur queestio; 
sed de sola communione infeliciter 
litigant, &c. De sola, “only about the 
union with the Church.” Therefore 
they erred not in fundamental points 
of faith. And, lastly, all that can 
farther be said against them, is, that 
some of them, to win the Goths to 
them, when they were powerful, said: 
[Aliquando autem, sicut audivimus, 
nonnulli ex ipsis volentes sibi Gotthos 
conciliare, quando eos vident aliquid 


To admit possibility of salvation in R. C. Ch. not to deny its dangers. 335 


in him, and would have repented of the schism had it been 
known to him, might be saved. Secondly, That in this 
particular the Romanist and the Donatist differ much; and 
that therefore it is not of necessary consequence, that if 
a Romanist now, upon the conditions before expressed, 
may be saved, therefore a Donatist heretofore might. 
For, in regard of the schism, the Donatist was in one respect 
worse, and in greater danger of damnation, than the Romanist 
now is; and in another respect better, and in less danger. 
The Donatist was in greater danger of damnation, if you 
consider the schism itself then; for they brake from the 
orthodox Church without any cause given them. And here 
it doth not follow, If the Romanist have “a possibility of 
salvation,” therefore a Donatist hath. But if you consider 
the cause of the schism now, then the Donatist was in less 
danger of damnation than the Romanist is; because the 
Church of Rome gave the first and the greatest cause of the 
schism, as is proved before.t And therefore here it doth not 
follow, that if a Donatist have possibility of salvation, there- 
fore a Romanist hath; for a lesser offender may have that 
possibility of safety, which a greater hath not. 

And last of all: whereas A.C. adds, that “ confessedly 
there is no such peril; that is a most loud untruth, and an 


SECTION 
XXXYV. 


A.C. p. 66. 


posse, dicunt] hoc se credere quod et 
illi credunt. Now the Goths, for the 
most, were Arians. But then, saith 
S. Augustine, they were but nonnulli, 
“some of them.” And of this some it 
was no more certain, than sicuté audivi- 
mus, “as we have heard ;” 5. Augustine 
knew it not. And then if it were true 
of some, yet majorum suorum aucto- 
ritate convincuntur; quia nec Dona- 
tus ipse sic ecredidisse asseritur, de 
cnjus parte se esse gloriantur.—S. Au- 
gustin. Epist.1. [aliter, de Correctione 
Donatistarum lib. seu Hpist. clxxxv. 
ad Bonifacium, Op., tom. ii. col. 643. 
D.] Where Prateolus is again de- 
ceived; for he says expressly, that 
Donatus affirmed the Son to be less 
than the Father: Impius ille assere- 
bat, &e. But then indeed—and which 
perchance deceived Prateolus—beside 
Donatus the founder of this heresy, 
there was another Donatus, who suc- 
ceeded Majorinus at Carthage, and he 
was guilty of the heresy which Pra- 
teolus mentions: [Cui Majorino Do- 


natus alius in eadem divisione succes- 
sit, qui eloquentia sua sic confirmavit 
hane heresim, ut multi existiment 
propter ipsum potius eos Donatistas 
vocari.| Exstant scripta ejus, ubi ap- 
paret [eum etiam non catholicam de 
Trinitate habuisse sententiam, sed 
quamyis ejusdem substantiz, minorem 
tamen Patre Filium, et minorem Filio 
putasse Sp. Sanctum,| as S. Augustine 
confesses, lib. de Hzeresibus, [ad Quod- 
vultdeum,] Heeres. lxix. [Op., tom. 
viii. col. 21. F.] But then 5. Augus- 
tine adds there also: [Verum in hune, 
quem de Trinitate habuit, ejus erro- 
rem Donatistarum multitudo intenta 
non fuit;]| nec facile in eis quisquam, 
[qui hoc illum sensisse noverit, inve- 
nitur,] that scarce any of the Donatists 
did so much as know, that this Dona- 
tus held that opinion, much less did 
they believe it themselves... Aug. 
Tbid. 

τ Sect. xxi. No. 4. ὅδ. [vide supra, 
p. 152.] 


990 


Conrerenck INgenuous man would never have said it. 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


Neither number, nor worth, of those who hold it, a test of truth. 


For in the same 
place,* where I grant a possibility of salvation in the Roman 
Church, I presently add, that it is no secure way, in regard 
of Roman corruptions. And A.C. cannot plead for himself 
that he either knew not this, or that he overlooked it; for 
himself disputes against it as strongly as he can. What 
modesty or truth call you this? For he that confesses a 
** possibility of salvation,” doth not thereby confess “no peril 
of damnation” in the same way. Yea, but if some “ Protest- 
ants should say there is peril of damnation to live and die in 
the Roman faith, their saying is nothing in comparison of 
the number or worth of those that say there is none.” So 


A, C. p.66, A. C. again : “ And beside, they which say it are contradicted 


by their own more learned brethren.” Here A.C. speaks 
very confusedly. But whether he speak of Protestants or 
Romanists, or mixes both, the matter is not great. For as 
for the number and worth of men, they are no necessary 
concluders for truth. Not number; for who would be judged 
by the many? The time was when the Arians were too many 


for the orthodox. 


5 Sect. xxxv. No. 1, 2. [vide supra, 
pp- 314—317. ] 

Ὁ Ingemuit totus orbis,et Arrianum 
se esse miratus est.—S. Hier. advers. 
Luciferian. post medium, tom. 11. [Al- 
tercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi, Op., 
tom. iv. col. 300. ed. Benedict.]—[Item, 
quando] Arrianorum yvenenum, non 
jam portiunculam quandam, sed pene 
orbem totum contaminaverat, adeo 
ut prope cunctis Latini Sermonis Epi- 
scopis, partim vi. partim fraude de- 
ceptis, caligo queedam mentibus offun- 
deretur, &c.—Vin. Lir. cont. Heres. 
cap. vi. [in init. p. 9.]—Ecclesia non 
parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum 
veritate. Ecclesia ibi est, ubi fides 
vera est. Ceeterum ante annos quin- 
decim, aut viginti, parietes omnes hie 
ecclesiarum heeretici (de Arrianis et 
aliis heereticis loquitur) possidebant 
... Ecclesia autem [vera] illic erat, 
ubi vera fides erat.—[ Pseudo-] 5. Hie- 
ronym. [Breviar. in Psalter.| in Ps, 
exxxlii. [Op., tom. ii. in Appendie. 
col.472.|— Constantius. Tantane orbis 
terre pars, Liberi, in te residet, ut tu 
solus homini impio (de Athanasio 
loquitur) subsidio venire, et pacem 
orbis ac mundi totius dirimere audeas? 


Not worth simply ; for that once misled, 


Liberius. Esto quod ego solus sim, 


. hon tamen propterea causa fidei fit 


inferior, nam olim tres solum erant 
reperti, qui regis mandato resisterent, 
Χο. [ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπε Λιβερίῳ' πόσον 
εἶ μέρος τῆς οἰκουμένης, ὅτι σὺ μόνος 
συναίρῃ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀνοσίῳ, καὶ τῆς οἰκου- 
μένης τὴν εἰρήνην καὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου 
λύεις ; Λιβέριος. οὐ διὰ τὸ εἶναί με μόνον, 
ὁ τῆς πίστεως ἐλαττοῦται λόγος, καὶ γὰρ 
κατὰ τὸ παλαιὸν, τρεῖς μόνοι εὑρίσκονται 
ἀντιστάντες προστάξει") --- Theodoret. 
Eeclesiast. Histor. lib. ii. cap. 16. Dia- 
logo inter Constant. Imp. et Liberium 
papam. [Apud Eccles. Hist. Seriptor. 
ed. Reading. tom. iii. p. 94.] So that 
pope did not think multitude any great 
note of the true Church.—Ubi sunt, 
&e. qui Ecclesiam multitudine defini- 
unt, et parvum gregem aspernantur, 
&e. [ποῦ ποτε εἰσὶν, of τὴν πενίαν ἡμῖν 
ὀνειδίζοντες, καὶ τὸν πλοῦτον κομπάζυν- 
TES; οἱ πλήθει τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὁρίζοντες, 
καὶ τὸ βραχὺ διαπτύοντες ποίμνιον ;|— 
8.Greg. Nazianzen.Orat. [xxxiii. olim] 
xxv. in init. [Op., tom. i. p. 603. A.] 
Nay, the Arians were grown to that 
boldness, that they objected to the 
Catholics of that time paucitatem, the 
thinness of their number. 


This principle disproved by its application to the Descent into Hel— 337 


is of all other the greatest misleader." And yet God forbid, 
that to worth weaker men should not yield in difficult and 
perplexed questions, yet so, as that when “ matters funda- 
mental in the faith’ come in question, they finally rest upon 
a higher and clearer certainty than can be found in either 
number or weight of men. Besides, if you mean your own 
party, you have not yet proved your party more worthy for life 
or’ learning than the Protestants. Prove that first, and then 
it will be time to tell you how worthy many of your popes 


Srcrion 
ΧΧΧΑ: 


1 [life of 


learning... 
male, ditt. 


have been for either life or learning. As for the rest, you 1673, and 
if 686. ] 


may blush to say it. For all Protestants unanimously agree 
in this, “That there is great peril of damnation for any man 
to live and die in the Roman persuasion.” And you are not 
able to produce any one Protestant that ever said the con- 
trary. And therefore that is a most notorious slander, where 
you say, that they which affirm this peril of damnation are 
contradicted by their own more learned brethren. 
VII.—And thus having cleared the way against the excep- 
tions of A.C. to the two former instances, I will now pro- 
ceed, as I promised,* to make this farther appear, that A. C. 
and his fellows dare not stand to that ground which is here 
laid down—unamely, “That in point of faith and salvation, 
it is safest for a man to take that way which the adversary 
confesses to be true, or whereon the differing parties agree ;” 
and that if they do stand to it, they must be forced to 
maintain the Church of England, in many things, against 
the Church of Rome. mi 
And, first, I imstance in the article of our Saviour Christ’s 


[καὶ τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν θρύλλημα τῶν ἐναντίων, 
μηδ᾽ ἂν πυλῶσι τὸν λεὼν ἐξαρκέσαι, 
τὸν πρὶν μερισθένθ᾽, ἡνίκ᾽ ἦμεν ἐνδεεῖς.] 

—S. Greg. Nazianz. Carm. de vita sua, 
[Carm. xi. 1.1495.]p. 24. ed. Paris.1611. 
[Op., tom. ii. p. 752, ed. Benedict. |— 
Quum ejectitamen essent decivitatibus, 
jactabant in desertis suis synagogis 
illud: Multi vocati, pauci electi. [καὶ 
γράμμασι τοὺς οἰκείους παρεμυθοῦντο, 
παραινοῦντες μὴ ἄχθεσθαι ἐφ᾽ οἷς πολλοὶ 
καταλιπόντες αὐτοὺς, τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ προσ- 
ἔθεντο" πολλοὺς γὰρ εἶναι τοὺς κλητοὺς, 
ὀλίγους δὲ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς. ]--- ϑοογαῦ. 
Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. v. cap. 10. (Apud 
Eccles. Hist. Scriptor. ed. Reading. 
tom. ii. p.276. The occasion to which 
the quotation alludes was when, the 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


Novatians agreeing with the orthodox, 
these bodies alone were allowed by 
Theodosius to occupy the churches 
in the city: all the heretics and secta- 
rians being banished from the city, were 
obliged to hold their assemblies in the 
country, and by way of consoling their 
adherents upon the general desertion 
to which they were subjected, the 
heterodox bishops and clergy wrote as 
above. | 

« Error Origenis et Tertulliani magna 
fuit in Dei Ecclesia populi tentatio.— 
Vincent. Lirinens. cont. Heeres. capp. 
23, 24. [in tit. pp. 49—55.] 

x Sect, xxxy. No. 4. [vide supra, p. 

323. ] 


Z 


A.C. p. 66. 


(1.) 


3338 


To the Institution of the Eucharist in both kinds— 


Conrerence descent into hell. I hope the Church of Rome believes this 


Ezek. xiii. 


10. 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


(2. 





) 


Article, and withal that hell is the place of the damned: so 
doth the Church of England. In this, then, these dissenting 
Churches agree. ‘Therefore, according to the former rule,— 
yea, and here in truth, too,—it is safest for a man to believe 
this Article of the Creed, as both agree: that is, that Christ 
descended in soul into the place of the damned. But this 
the Romanists will not endure at any hand. For the School 
agree in it, that the soul of Christ, in the time of his death, 
went really no farther than in limbum patrum ;° which is not 
the place of the damned, but a region or quarter in the 
upper part of hell, as they call it, built up there by the 
Romanist, without licence of either Scripture or the primitive 
Church. And a man would wonder how those builders 
“ with untempered mortar” found light enough in that dark 
place to build as they have done. 

Secondly, I will instance in the institution of the sacra- 
ment in both kinds. That Christ instituted it so, is con- 
fessed by both Churches ; that the ancient Churches received 
it so, is agreed by both Churches: therefore, according to 
the former rule, and here in truth too, it is safest for a man 
to receive this sacrament in both kinds. And yet here this 
ground of A.C. must not stand for good—no, not at Rome ; 
but to receive in one kind is enough for the laity. And the 
poor Bohemians must have a dispensation that it may be 
lawful for them to receive the sacrament as Christ com- 
manded them. And this must not be granted to them 
neither, “unless they will acknowledge,”—most opposite to 
truth,— “that they are not bound by Divine law to receive it 
in both kinds.”* And here their building “ with untempered 
mortar” appears most manifestly. For they have no show 
to maintain this but the fiction of Thomas of Aquin, “ That 
he which receives the body of Christ receives also His blood 
per concomitantiam,”’ “ by concomitancy,”’ because the blood 
goes always with the body; of which term, Thomas was the 


y Sequuntur enim [56. Scholastici] z Basileense Concilium concessit 
§.Thom.[Aquin.Summ. |par.3.Q[uzest.| | Bohemis utriusque speciei usum : modo 
lii. Afrtic|. 2. in conclus. Verba ejus faterentur id sibi concedi ab Ecclesia, 
sunt: Anima Christi per suam essen- non autem ad hoc teneri divino jure. 
tiam descendit solum ad locum infer- —Bellarmin. de Sacrament. in genere, 
ni, in quo justi detinebantur, &c. (ubi 110. i. cap. 2. ὃ 2. [Op., tom. iii. col.12. 
sup. p. 53. notes * and ’. | B. 


To the Sacrifice in the Eucharist, 


first author I can yet find." First, then, If this be true, 
I hope Christ knew it: and then why did He so unusefully 
institute it in both kinds? Next, If this be true, “ concomi- 
tancy ” accompanies the priest as well as the people: and 
then why may not he receive it in one kind also? Thirdly, 
This is apparently not true; for the Eucharist is a sacrament 
sanguinis effusi, “ of blood shed,” and poured out ; and blood 
poured out, and so severed from the body, goes not along 
with the body per concomitantiam. And yet Christ must 
rather err, or proceed I know not how, in the institution of 
the sacrament in both kinds, rather than the “ holy unerring 
Church of Rome” may do amiss in the determination for it, 
and the administration of it in one kind. Nor will the 
distinction, “That Christ instituted this as a sacrifice, to 
which both kinds were necessary,” serve the turn; for sup- 
pose that true, yet He instituted it as a sacrament also, or 
else that sacrament had no institution from Christ; which 
I presume A. C. dares not affirm. And that institution which 
this' sacrament had from Christ, was in both kinds. 

And since here is mention happened of sacrifice, my third 
instance shall be in the sacrifice which is offered up to God 
in that great and high mystery of our redemption by the 
death of Christ; for, as Christ offered up Himself once for 
all, a full and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the whole 
world,’ so did He institute and command a memory of this 
sacrifice in a sacrament, even till His coming again.° For, 


4 §. Thom. [Aquin. Summ. par. 3. 
Q[ueest.] Ixxvi. A[rtic]. 2. in conclus. 
et alibi passim. [ubi sup. p. 330. 
note *.] 

Ὁ “Christ by His own blood entered 
once into the holy place, and obtained 
eternal redemption for us.”—Heb. ix. 
12. And this was done by way of 
sacrifice. “ By the offering of the body 
of Jesus Christ once made.”—Heb. x. 
10.—“ Christ gave Himself for us, to be 
an offering, and a sacrifice of a sweet 
smelling savour unto God.”—Eph. v. 2. 
Out of which place the School infers, 
Passionem Christi verum sacrificium 
fuisse—S. Thom. [ Aquin. Summ. ] par. 
3. Q[ueest.] xlviil. A[rtic.] 3. in conclus. 
[ His words are: Respondeo dicendum, 
quod sacrificium proprie dicitur aliquid 
factum in honorem proprie Deo debi- 
tum ad Eum placandum. Et inde est 


quod Augustin. dicit in lib. x. de Ci- 
vit. Dei: Verum sacrificium est omne 
opus quod agitur, ut sancta societate 
inhereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad 
illum finem boni, quo veraciter beati 
esse possimus. Christus autem, ut 
ibidem subditur, seipsum obtulit in 
passione pro nobis, et hoc ipsum opus 
quod voluntarie passionem sustinuit, 
Deo maxime acceptum fuit, utpote ex 
charitate maxima proveniens. Unde 
manifestum est, quod passio Christi 
fuerit verum  sacrificium. 1---“ Christ 
did suffer death upon the cross for our 
redemption, and made there, by his 
one oblation of himself once offered, 
a full, perfect, and suflicient sacrifice, 
oblation, and satisfaction for the sins 
of the whole world.”—Eccles. Ang. in 
Canone Consecrationis Euchar. 

© « And Christ did institute, and in 


7% 2 


3939 


Srorron 
XXXV. 





they 
Editt. 1673, 
and 1686 ] 


(3.) 


340 


(which Sacrifice is threefold) — 


Coxrerence at and in the Eucharist, we offer up to God three sacrifices : 


WITH 


FISHER. 


One by the priest only ; 


that is the commemorative sacrifice 


of Christ’s death, represented in bread broken and wine 
poured out.’ Another by the priest and the people jointly ; 
and that is, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for all 
the benefits and graces we receive by the precious death of 


His holy Gospel command us to con- 
tinue a perpetual memory of that His 
precious death, until His coming 
again.”—Eecles. Ang. ibid. 

4 Hoe sacramentum | habet triplicem 
significationem. Unam quidem res- 
pectu preteriti: in quantum scilicet] 
est commemorativum Dominice pas- 
sionis, quee fuit verum sacrificium ; [ut 
supra dictum est, Queest. xlvili. Artic. 3. 
(ubi sup. note *) et secundum hoc | nomi- 
natur sacrificium.]—S. Thom. [Aquin. 
Summ.] par. 3. Q[ueest.] xxiii. A[rtic]. 
4. in conclus.—‘ [And] Christ, being 
offered up once for all in His own 
proper person, is yet said to be offered 
up [not only every year at Easter, but 
also every day] in the celebration of 
the sacrament, because His oblation, 
once for ever made, is thereby repre- 
sented.”—Lambert, [A Treatise of the 
Sacrament to the King,] in Foxe’s 
Martyrology, vol. ii. ed. London, 1597, 
p. 1033. [Actsand Monuments, vol. ii. 
p. 365. col. i. ed. London, 1684. ]—Et 
postea, [“ Not that the sacrament is 
His natural body or blood indeed, but 
that ] it is a memorial orrepresentation 
thereof.”—Ibid.—“[And] the Master 
of the Sentences, {of whom all the 
school authors take their occasion to 
write,] judged truly in this point, 
saying, [lib.1V. Dist. xii. ] ‘That which 
is offered and consecrated of the priest 
is called a sacrifice and oblation, be- 
cause it is a memory, and representa- 
tion of the true sacrifice and holy 
oblation, made in the altar of the 
cross.’ ”°—Archbishop Cranmer in his 
{ Defence of the true and catholic doc- 
trine of the Sacrament of the Body and 
Blood of our Saviour Christ, &e.| Book 
v. (chap. 18. Works, vol. ii. p. 458. 
ed. Jenkyns.|—And again: “This 
shortly is the mind of Lombardus, 
That the thing which is done at God’s 
board is a sacrifice, and so is that also 
which was made upon the cross, but 
not after one manner of understanding. 
For this was the thing in deed, and 
that is the [anniversary or] comme- 
moration of the thing.”—{ Archbishop 


Cranmer, Answer to Gardyner, the 
Sacrifice of Christ, book v. Works, ut 
sup. vol. iii. p.540.] — So likewise 
Bishop Jewell acknowledgeth incruen- 
tum et rationabile sacrificium, spoken 
of by Eusebius de Demonstrat. Evan- 
gel. lib. i. [eap. 10.] Jewell’s Reply 
against Harding, Art. xvii. Divis. 9. 
[ Works, vol. iii. p. 358. ed. Jelf. His 
words are: ‘*‘ Touching the sacrifice 
of the Lord’s Table, Eusebius writeth 
thus: μνήμην ἡμῖν παρέδωκε ἀντὶ θυ- 
σίας τῷ Θεῷ διηνεκῷς προσφέρειν" ‘ He 
gave us a remembrance instead of a 
sacrifice to offer up continually unto 
God.’ And this he calleth, cxceruen- 
tum et rationabile sacrifictum ; ‘the 
unbloody and reasonable sacrifice.’ 1--- 
Again: [“ In like manner | the minis- 
tration of the holy communion is some- 
times of the ancient fathers called an 
‘unbloody sacrifice ; not in respect of 
any corporal or fleshly presence, that 
is imagined to be there without blood- 
shedding, but for that it representeth, 
and reporteth unto our minds, that one 
and everlasting sacrifice that Christ 
made in His body upon the cross.”— 
This Bishop Jewell disliketh not in 
his Answer to Harding, Art. xvii. Di- 
vis. 14, [Works, vol. 111. p. 375. ]— 
Patres [autem] ccenam Dominicam, 
[seu ut jam vocant missam,}j du- 
plici de causa vocarunt sacrificitum 
incruentum : tum quod sit imago et 
solennis repreesentatio illius sacrificii 
ἱλαστικοῦ, quod Christus cum sanguinis 
effusione obtulit in cruce: tum quod 
sit etiam Hucharisticum sacrificiumn, 
hoc est, sacrificium laudis et gratiarum 
actionis, cum pro beneficiis omnibus, 
tum pro redemptione inprimis per 
Christi mortem peracta.—[ Hieronym. | 
Zanchius in 1]. precept. Decalog. [lib.i. 
de cultu Dei externo, cap. 6. de Sacri- 
ficiis Christianorum, Op.,]| tom. iv. col. 
469. [ed. Crispini, 1617.]—And Dr. 
Fulke also acknowledges a sacrifice in 
the Eucharist, in S. Matth. xxvi. 26. 
{His words are: “The other term 
(sacrifice) we do not utterly deny, but 
in a sort. For in such sort as the 


To the Essentials of Baptism — 


Christ.° The third, by every particular man for himself only ; 
and that is, the sacrifice of every man’s body and soul, to 
serve Him in both all the rest of his life, for tfiis blessing 
thus bestowed on him. Now, thus far these dissenting 
Churches agree, that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of 
duty, and a sacrifice of praise, and a sacrifice of comme- 
moration of Christ. Therefore, according to the former rule, 
(and here in truth too,) it is safest for a man to believe the 
commemorative, the praising, and the performing sacrifice, 
and to offer them duly to God, and leave the Church of 
Rome in this particular to her superstitions, that I may say 
no more. And would the Church of Rome stand to A.C.’s 
rule, and believe dissenting parties where they agree, were it 
but in this, and that before, of the Real Presence, it would 
work far toward the peace of Christendom. But the truth 
is, they pretend the peace of Christendom, but care no more 
for it than as it may uphold, at least, if not increase, their 
own greatness. 

My fourth instance shall be in the sacrament of baptism, 
and the things required as necessary to make it effectual to 
the receiver. They, in the common received doctrine of the 
Church of Rome, are three—the matter, the form, and the 
intention of the priest to do that which the Church doth, 
and intends he should do. Now all other divines, as well 
ancient as modern, and both the dissenting Churches also, 
agree in the two former; but many deny that the intention 





ancient fathers did call this action a 
sacrifice, ...in this sort, I say, we do 
not utterly deny the term of sacrifice.” 
—Fulke on the Rhemish Testament, 
ὅθ. p. 96. ed. London, 1633.|—Non 
[igitur] dissimulaverunt Christiani, in 
coena Domini, sive ut ipsi loquebantur, 
in sacrificio altaris, peculiari quodam 
modo przsentem se venerari Deum 
Christianorum ; sed que esset forma 
ejus sacrificii, quod per symbola panis 
et vini peragitur, hoc veteres pre se 
non ferebant, [verum occultabant.|— 
Isaac. Casauboni, Exercit. xvi. ad 
Annales [Ecclesiasticos]  Baronii, 
ὃ xlili. p. 560. [p. 402. ed. Francof. 
1615.] 

6 In the Liturgy of the Church of 
England we pray to God immediately 
after the reception of the sacrament, 
“That He would be pleased to accept 


this our sacrifice of praise and thanks- 
giving,” &c.—And: [“ By Him there- 
fore let us offer the sacrifice of praise 
to God continually,” |—Heb. xiii. 15.— 
[... “my doctrine, as well of] the sacri- 
fice propitiatory which was made by 
Christ Himself only, as of the sacrifice 
commemorative and gratulatory made 
by the priests and people.”— Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, in his Answer to Gar- 
dyner, book vy. p. 377. [ Works, vol. 
ili. p. 540.] 

f «] beseech you, brethren, by the 
mercies of God, that you give up your 
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, and 
acceptable unto God.”—Rom. xii. 1.— 
“We offer and present unto Thee, 
O Lord, ourselves, our souls, and 
bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and 
living sacrifice unto Thee.”—So the 
Church of England in the Prayer after 


954] 


ΞΒΟΤΙΟΝ 
ΧΧΧΥ. 





342 


and to the Sufficiency of the English Liturgy. 


Coxrerence Of the priest is necessary. Will A.C. hold his rule: “That 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


it is safest to believe, in a controverted point of faith, that 
which the ‘dissenting parties agree on, or which the adverse 
part confesses?” If he will not, then why should he press 
that, as a rule to direct others, which he will not be guided 
by himself? And if he will, then he must go professedly 
against the Council of Trent, which hath determined it as 
de fide, “as a point of faith,” that the intention of the priest 
is necessary to make the baptism true and valid. Though, in 
the history of that Council, it is most apparent the bishops 
and other divines there could not tell what to answer to the 
Bishop of Minors [Minori], a Neapolitan, who declared his 
judgment openly against it, in the face of that Council. 

My fifth instance is: We say, and can easily prove, there 
are divers errors, and some gross ones, in the Roman Missal. 
But I myself have heard some Jesuits confess, that in the 
Liturgy of the Church of England there is no positive error. 
And being pressed, Why then they refused to comp to our 
Churches and serve God with us? they answered, They 
could not do it; because, though our Liturgy had in it 
nothing ill, yet it wanted a great deal of that which was 
good, and was in their Service. Now here let A.C. consider 
again: here is a plain “concession of the adverse part :” 
and both agree, there is nothing in our service but that 
which is holy and good. What will the Jesuit, or A. Ὁ. 
say to this? If he forsake his ground, then it is not safest 
in point of divine worship to join in faith as the dissenting 
parties agree, or to stand to the adversaries’ own confession. 
If he be so hardy as to maintain it, then the English Liturgy 
is better and safer to worship God by than the Roman 
Mass—which yet, I presume, A.C. will not confess. 

VIII.—In all these instances—the matter so falling out 
of itself, for the argument enforces it not—“ the thing is true, 
but not therefore true because the dissenting parties agree 
in it,” or because the adverse part confesses it. Yet, lest 


the receiving of the Blessed Sacra- requiri intentionem, saltem faciendi 
ment. quod facit ecclesia: anathema sit. | 

8. Concil. Tridentin. Sess. vii. Can. h [P. Sarpi.] Histor. Concil. Tri- 
11. [de Sacramentis in genere. Si dent. lib. ii. p. 277. ed. Lat. Leide, 
quis dixerit, in ministris dum Sacra- 1622. [ubi sup. p. 162. noteY, and p. 
menta conficiunt, et conferunt, non 304. note ".] 


Applied also to case of the Arians—The Resurrection of the Body— 8.48 


the Jesuit, or A.C. for him, farther to deceive the weak, ββοτιον 
should infer that this rule in so many instancesgis true, and _***V- 
false in none, but that one concerning baptism among the (1.) 
Donatists—and therefore the argument is true wt plerumque, 

“as for the most,” and that therefore “it is the safest way to 

believe that which dissenting parties agree on ;”—I will lay 

down some other particulars, of as great consequence as any 

can be in or about Christian religion. And if in them A.C. 

or any Jesuit dare say, that it is safest to believe as the 
dissenting parties agree, or as the adverse party confesses, 

I dare say he shall be an heretic in the highest degree, if 

not an infidel. 

And first: Where the question was betwixt the orthodox 
and the Arian, whether the Son of God were consubstantial 
with the Father. The orthodox said He was ὁμοούσιος, “ of 
the same substance.” The Arian came within a letter of the 
truth, and said He was ὁμοιούσιος, “ of like substance.’ Now 
he thaf®says, He is of the same substance, confesses He is of 
like substance—and more, that is, identity of substance ; 
for identity contains in it all degrees of likeness, and more. 

But he that acknowledges and believes that He is of like 

nature, and no more, denies the identity. Therefore, if this 

rule be true, “ That it is safest to believe that in which the 
dissenting parties agree,” or, “ which the adverse part con- 

fesses,” which A.C. makes such great vaunt of, then it is A.C. pp.64, 
safest for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like nature °” 

with God the Father, and be free from belief that He is con- 
substantial with Him; which yet is concluded by the Council 
of Nice as “ necessary to salvation,” and the contrary con- 
demned for “ damnable heresy.” 

Secondly : In the question about the resurrection, between 
the orthodox and divers gross heretics* of old, and the 
Anabaptists and Libertines of late. For all or most of these 
dissenting parties agree, that there ought to be a resurrec- 


γ- τς 
ris) 
ee 


i Concil. Niczen. Fides, vel Symbo- ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.--- 
lum in fine Concil. [τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας. Concil. tom. ii. col. 28. C. ] 
ἣν ποτε OTE οὐκ ἦν, ἢ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι k Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, 
οὐκ ἦν, ἢ ὅτι ἐξ ode ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ  Cerinthus, Valentinus, Cerdon, Apel- 
ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας les, &e.—Tertull. de preescript. advers. 
εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν, ἢ τρεπτὸν Heeret. capp. xlvi. xlviii. xlix. li, Xe. 
τὸν υἵον τοῦ Θεοῦ: τούτους ἀναθεματίζει [pp. 219—225. ed. Rigalt.] 


944. 


The Unity of the Godhead—The Divinity of our Lord. 


Conrerence tion from sin to a state of grace; and that this resurrection 


WITH 
Fisuer, 


(4. 


Heb. xi. 
37. 


only is meqgnt in divers passages of Holy Scripture, toge- 
ther with the life of the soul, which they are content to say 
is immortal. But they! utterly deny any “resurrection of 
the body” after death; so with them that article of the 
Creed is gone. Now then, if any man will guide his faith 
by this rule of A.C.—the “consent of dissenting parties,” 
or “the confession of the adverse part,’—he must deny the 
resurrection of the body from the grave to glory, and believe 
none but that of the soul from sin to grace, which the 
“adversaries confess,” and in which the “ dissenting parties 
agree.” 

Thirdly: In the great dispute of all others, about the 
“unity of the Godhead,” all dissenting parties, Jew, Turk, 
and Christian —among Christians, orthodox and <Anti- 
Trinitarian of old; and in these later times, orthodox and 
Socimian, that horrid and mighty monster of all heresies— 
agree in this, That there is but one God. And I h@pe it is 
as necessary to believe one God our Father, as one Church 
our mother. Now, will A.C. say here, “It is safest believ- 
ing as the dissenting parties agree,’ or “as the adverse 
parties confess,’”’—namely, That there is but one God; and so 
deny the Trinity, and therewith the Son of God the Saviour 
of the world? 

Fourthly: In a point as fundamental in the faith as this— 
namely, Whether Christ be true and very God—for which 
very point most of the martyrs™ in the primitive Church 
laid down their lives—the dissenting parties here were the 


' Libertini rident spem omnem, —Pet. Martyr, Loe. Commun. Class. iii. 


quam de resurrectione habemus, idque 
jam nobis evenisse dicunt, quod adhue 
expectamus. [Si queratur, quomodo 
id intelligant ; nempe, inquiunt,] ut 
homo sciat animam suam spiritum 
immortalem esse perpetuo viventem 
in ceelis: [ac Christum morte sua 
opinationem abolevisse, eaque ratione 
nobis restituisse vitam, que in eo est, 
ut nos Minime mori cognoscamus. | 
— Calvin. Instructione advers. Liber- 
tinos, cap. xxii. in init. [Op., tom. 
vii. p. 395. col. 1.|—Sunt etiam hodie 
Libertini qui eam irrident, et resurrec- 
tionem, que tractatur in Scripturis, 
tantum ad animas (@/.animos) referunt. 


cap. xv. [de Resurrectione, | § 4. [p. 486. 
col. 2. Ὁ. ed. Genev. 1624. ] 

™ Cyrillus Alexandrinus male audi- 
vit, quod Ammonium martyrem ap- 
pellavit, quem constitit temeritatis 
poenas dedisse, et non necessitate 
negandi Christi in tormentis esse 
mortuum. [ἀλλ᾽ οἱ σωφρονοῦντες, καίπερ 
Χριστιανοὶ ὄντες, ovK ἀπεδέχοντο τὴν 
περὶ τούτου Κυρίλλου σπουδήν" ἢπί- 
σταντο γὰρ, προπετείας δίκην δεδωκέναι 
τὸν ᾿Αμμώνιον, οὐ μὴν ἀνάγκῃ ἀρνήσεως 
Χριστοῦ, ἐναποθανεῖν ταῖς Bucdvo.s*|— 
Socrat. Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. vii. cap. 
14. [apud Eccles. Hist. Scriptor. ed. 
Reading. tom. ii. p. 360. ] 


In these cases Consent of Dissentients is no proof of truth. 


orthodox: believers, who affirm He is both God and man, 
for so our Creed teaches us; and all those heretics which 
affirm Christ to be man, but deny him to be God—as the 
Arians," and Carpocratians,° and Cerinthus,? and Hebion,1 
with others; and at this day the Socinians.". These dis- 
senting parties agree fully and clearly, That Christ is man. 
Well then; dare A.C. stick to his rule here, and say it is 
safest for a Christian in this great point of faith to govern 
his belief by “the consent of these dissenting parties,” or 
“the confession and acknowledgment of the adverse party,” 
and so settle his belief, that Christ is a mere man and not 
God? I hope he dares not. So then, this rule, “To re- 
solve a man’s faith into that in which the dissenting parties 
agree, or which the adverse part confesses,” is as often false 
as true; and false in as great, if not greater matters, than 
those in which it is true. And where it is true, A.C. and his 
fellows dare not govern themselves by it; the Church of 
Rome «condemning those things which that rule proves. 
And yet, while they talk of certainty—nay, of infallibility, 
less will not serve their turns—they are driven to make use 
of such poor shifts as these, which have no certainty at all 
of truth in them, but infer falsehood and truth alike. And 
yet for this also, men will be so weak, or so wilful, as to be 
seduced by them. 

IX.—I told you before,’ that the force of the preceding 
argument lies upon two things—the one expressed, and 
that is past; the other upon the bye, which comes now to 


n (Dictum est hoc et de Arrio, qui 
conabatur docere Filium Dei ex nullis 
substantiis factum esse, non ex Deo 
natum.]— 5, Optatus, [Milevit. de 
Schism. Donatist.] contra Parmenian. 
lib. iv. [cap. 5. Op., p. 73.] 

ὁ (Carpoerates ... dicit ... Christ- 
um non ex virgine Maria natum, sed 
ex semine Joseph, hominem tantum- 
modo genitum, sane prz ceteris 
justitize cultu, vite: integritate melio- 
rem. |—Tertullian. lib. de preescript. 
Heereticor. cap. xlviii. [Op., p. 221. C. ] 

P [Post hune Cerinthus hereticus 
erupit, similia docens... Christum 
ex semine Joseph natum proponit, 
hominem illum tantummodo sine 
divinitate contendens, &c. | — Tertul- 
lian. ibid. [p. 221. D.] 


4 [Poterit heee opinio Hebioni con- 
venire, qui nudum hominem, et tan- 
tum ex semine David, id est, non et 
Dei Filium, constituit Jesum. ]—Ter- 
tullian. lib. de Carne Christi, cap. xiv. 
[p. 319. C2] 

x [... secus esset, si Jesus Christus 
excelsiore quadam, et supra humanam 
conditionem posita, natura preeditus 
fuisset .. . Ut enim, siad ejus respicias 
esseptiam atque naturam, non nisi 
hominem eum _ fuisse constanter 
affrmamus. ]—Volkelius, de Religione 
Christiana, lib. iii. cap. 1. [p. 38. 
Joann. Volkelii Misnici, de vera Relig. 
lib. quinque, Racovize, 1630. ] 

® Sect. xxxv. No. 2. in fine. [vide 
supra, p. 319. ] 


345 


Srorron 


XXXYV. 


840 


Conrrrence be handled. 


WITH 
FisueEr. 


Roman Catholics confound the Roman, with the Catholic, Church. 


And that is your continual poor outery against 
us, “ That we cannot be saved because we are out of the 
Church.” Sure, if I thought I were out, I would get in as 
fast as I could. For we confess as well as you, That out of 
the catholic Church of Christ there is no salvation. But 
what do you mean, by “out of the Church?” Sure, out of 
the Roman Church." Why, but the Roman Church and the 
Church of England are but two distinct members of that 
Catholic Church which is spread over the face of the earth. 
Therefore Rome is not the house where the Church dwells; 
but Rome itself, as well as other particular churches, dwells 
in this great universal house—unless you will shut up the 


: oom Church in Rome, as the Donatists! did in Africa. I come a 
. . Edit. 


1686. ] 


little lower. Rome and other national Churches are in this 
universal catholic house as so many daughters,* to whom, 
under Christ, the care of the household is committed by 
God the Father, and the Catholic Church the mother of all 
Christians. Rome, as an elder sister, but not the eldest 
neither,’ had a great care committed unto her, in and from 


t [Proinde Ecclesia Catholica sola 
corpus est Christi, cujus Ille caput est 
Salvator corporis Sui.] Extra hoe 
corpus neminem vivificat Spiritus 
Sanctus: (quia, sicut ipse dicit Apo- 
stolus, (Rom. ν. 5.) Caritas Dei diffusa 
est, &c.|—S. Augustin. [Lib. de Cor- 
rectione Donatist. seu Epist. elxxxv. 
ad Bonifacium, aliter] Epist. 1. [§ 50. 
Op., tom. ii. col. 663. B.]—[... “one 
Holy Catholic Church, in which only 
the light of heavenly truth is to be 
sought, where only grace, mercy, re- 
mission of sins, and hope of eternal 
happiness are found.” ]-—Field, Of the 
Church, book i. ch. 11. [p. 18. ed. Ox- 
ford, 1628.]—Una [vero] est fidelium 
universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus 
[omnino] salvatur.— Concil. Late- 
ranens. [I V. an. 1215. ] Can. i. [Concil. 
tom. xi. col. 143. B.] And yet even 
there, there is no mention of the 
Roman Church. 

« And so doth A.C. too: “ Out of 
the Catholic Roman Church there is 
no possibility of salvation.”—A. C. 


» 65: 
i x And “daughter Sion” was God’s 
own phrase of old of the Church: 
“(And the daughter of Zion is left as 
a cottage in a vineyard,” &c.] Isaiah 


i. 8.—[eiSes τοῦ προφήτου, (se. heec 
verba Isaize) ἀγαπητὲ, τὴν ἔκλαμψιν, ἣν 
πρὸ πόσων γενεῶν τὸν καιρὸν προ- 
εθέσπισεν" οὐ γὰρ περὶ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων 
τοῦτον τὸν λύγον προὔπέφηνεν, οὐδὲ περὶ 
τῆς Σιὼν τῆς πόλεως, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας [Σιὼν γὰρ τὴν ἐξ ἐθνῶν 
προσαχθεῖσαν νύμφην πάντες οἱ προφῆ- 
ται ἐδήλωσαν᾽"--- Pseudo-| 5. Hippolyt. 
lib. de Consummatione Mundi, [eap. 
iii. Op., tom. i. in Appendice, p. 6. 
ed. Fabricii, Hamburgi, 1716.|—Et, 
Omnis Ecclesia Virgo appellata est. 
—S. Augustin. in S. Johan. cap. iii. 
Tractat. xiii. [ἢ 12. Op., tom. iii. par. 
2. col. 396. G.] 

y For Christ was to be preached to 
all nations, but that preaching was 
to begin at Jerusalem, 8. Luke xxiv. 
47, according to the prophecy, Mic. 
iv. 2. “ And the Disciples were first 
called Christians at Antioch,” Acts xi. 
26. And therefore there was a Church 
there before ever S. Peter came thence 
to settle one at Rome. Nor is it an 
opinion destitute either of authority 
or probability, That the faith of Christ 
was preached, and the sacraments 
administered, here in England, before 
any settlement of a Church in Rome. 
For 8. Gildas, the ancientest monu- 


The R. C. Church guilty of usurpation and tyranny. 


847 


the prime times of the Church, and to her bishop in her;  Sxcrroy 
but at this time (to let pass many brawls that have formerly 
been in the house) England and some other sisters of hers 


are fallen out in the family. What then? 


Will the Father 


and the Mother, God and the Church, cast one child out, 


ment we have, and whom the Ro- 
manists themselves reverence, says 
expressly, That the religion of Christ 
was received in Britannie, tempore 
(ut scimus) summo Tiberii Ceesaris, 
&e. “in the later time of Tiberius 
Ceesar.”— Gildas de Excid. Britan. [cap. 
vi.]: whereas 8. Peter kept in Jewry 
long after Tiberius’s death. There- 
fore the first conversion of this island 
to the faith, was not by 8. Peter ; nor 
from Rome, which was not then a 
Church. Against this Rich. Brough- 
ton, in his Ecclesiastical History of 
Great Britain, Century J. chap. viii. ὃ 4. 
[p. 88. ed. Douay, 1633,] says ex- 
pressly: [‘* Therefore, for better satis- 
faction of his readers, I will cite at 
large the words of that holy ancient 
British writer, as our English Pro- 
testants have published him to the 
world, and some manuscripts also have. 
These they are: Interea glaciali frigore 
rigenti insulee, et velut longiore terra- 
rum semper (al. secessu) soli visibili 
non proxime, verus 1116 non de firma- 
mento solum temporali, sed de summa 
etiam ccelorum arce tempora cuncta 
excedente, universo orbi preefulgidum 
sui coruscum ostendens tempore, ut 
scimus, summo Tiberii Czesaris, quo 
absque ullo impedimento, ejus pro- 
mulgabatur religio, comminata, senatu 
nolente, a principe morte dilatoribus 
militum ejusdem, radios suos in- 
dulget, id est, sua preecepta, Christus. 
Hitherto the very words of 8. Gildas 
as he is published by] Protestants: 
who freely acknowledge, that clause 
‘of the time of Tiberius’ to be wanting 
in other copies of that holy writer, as, 
namely, in that which was put forth by 
Polydore Virgil and others.” Whereas, 
first, these words are expressed in a 
most fair and ancient manuscript of 
Gildas, to be seen in Sir Robert Cotton’s 
study, if any doubt it. Secondly, these 
words are as express in the printed 
edition of Gildas by Polyd. Virg. 
which edition was printed at London, 
an. 1525, [fol. vil. v.] and was never 
reprinted since. Thirdly, these words 
are as express in the edition of Gildas, 
by Jo. Joscelin, printed at London also, 


an. 1568, [00]. ix. v.] And this falsehood 
of Broughton is so much the more 
foul, because he boasts (Preefat. to 
his reader, 7m jine,) That he hath seen 
and diligently perused the most and 
best monuments and antiquities ex- 
tant, &c. For if he did not see and 
peruse these, he is vainly false to 
say it; if he did see them, he is most 
maliciously false to belie them. And, 
lastly, whereas he says: The Pro- 
testants themselves confess so much, 
I must believe he is as false in this as 
in the former, till he name the Pro- 
testants to me which do confess it. And 
when he doth, he shall gain but this 
from me, That those Protestants which 
confessed it, were mistaken. For the 
thing is mistaken. [Of “ the most 
fair and ancient manuscript of Gildas, 
to be seen in Sir Robert Cotton’s 
study,” no trace at present seems to 
exist. All the MSS. in the Cottonian 
library catalogued as those of Gildas, 
are of the work of Nennius. Mr. 
Stevenson, the recent Editor of Gildas 
in the “ Historical Society’s” series, 
can trace only the existence of a 
single MS., containing the Epistola 
de excidio Britanniz, viz. that at Cam- 
bridge, which was used by Gale in his 
edition of Gildas, apud Rerum Angli- 
carum Scriptores, tom. iii. Oxon. 
1691. The clause occurs in this MS., 
and of course in Gale’s edition (p. 3). 
Both Polydore Virgil, in the dedi- 
cation of his edition to Cuthbert 
Tonstal, and Joscelin, in his preface 
addressed to Matthew Parker, give 
accounts of the different MSS. of the 
Epistola de Excidio, ὅζο., which they 
respectively used ; but it is doubtful 
if they now exist. Laud’s allusion to 
the existence of this Cotton MS. is 
unique: and Mr. Stevenson does not 
seem to have been aware of it.— 
Laud’s statement, that the first edition 
of Gildas, that by Polydore Virgil, 
““ was never reprinted since,” is incor- 
rect. It is reprinted in the work 
Opus Historiarum nostro Szeculo 
convenientissimum, Basilew, 1549. 
The clause in question occurs at p. 
498. | 


XXXYV. 


348 


Conrerence because another is angry with it? 


WITH 
FisHer. 


Charity of the Catholic Church. 


Or when did Christ 
give that power to an elder sister, that she, and her steward 
the bishop there, should thrust out what child she pleased? 
—especially when she herself is justly accused to have given 
the offence that is taken in the house? Or will not both 
Father and Mother be sharper to her for this unjust and 
unnatural usage of her younger sisters, but their dear 
children? Nay, is it not the next way to make them turn 
her out of doors, that is so unnatural to the rest? It is well 
for all Christian men and churches, that the Father and 
Mother of them are not so cursed as some would have them. 
And salvation need not be feared of any dutiful child, nor 
outing from the Church, because this elder sister’s faults 
are discovered in the house, and she grown froward for it 
against them that complained. But as children cry when 
they are waked out of sleep, so do you, and wrangle with all 
that come near you. And Stapleton confesses, “ That ye 
were in a dead sleep, and overmuch rest, when the Pro- 
testants stole upon you.” Now if you can prove that Rome 
is properly the Catholic Church itself,? as you commonly call 
it, speak out and prove it. In the mean time you may mark 
this too, if you will, and it seems you do; for here you 
forget not what the Bishop said to you. 


7 (Sed, benedictus sit Deus in seecula, 
licet speciosze et splendidee illusiones 
ineautos multorum oculos primo as- 
pectu fascinarent, dum otium et somnus 
corda eorum aggravabant, hodie tamen 
novis vestris heeresibus expurgefacti, 
et ad pleniorem considerationem .. . 
excitati, sapere incipiunt, &¢c.—Sta- 
pleton.| Falsitatis nota in Juellum 
retorta, &c. Artic. iv. Mendacium 
105. [se. Hardingi, sic Juellus.] [Fal- 
sum 355 sc. Juelli, sic Stapleton. Op., 
tom. iv. p. 1375. A. ] 

* For I am sure there is a Roman 
Church, that is but a particular.— 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 4. 
[Ὁ] sup. p. 4. note ©] And then 
you must either show me another 
Roman Church, which is the catholic; 
or you must show how one and the 
same Roman Church is in different 
respects or relations a particular, and 
yet the catholic. Which is not yet 
done. AndI do not say, a particular, 


and yet ὦ catholic; but a particular, 
and yet the catholic Church : forso you 
speak. For that which Card. Peron 
hath, That the Roman Church is the 
Catholie causally, because it infuses 
universality into all the whole body of 
the Catholic Church, can, I think, sa- 
tisfy no man that reads it—that a parti- 
cular should infuse universality into an 
universal. [His words are!: Et pourtant 
l’Eglise Romaine, qui comme centre et 
principe de la communion ecclésias- 
tique, influé l’unité qui est la forme 
de Vuniversalité, ἃ l’Eglise Catholique, 
et par conséquent cause en elle l’uni- 
versalité, peut étre appelée Catholique 
causalement, encore qu’en son estre 
elle soit particuliére |—{Card.]} Perron, 
Reply, &c. [English transl.] bookiy. ch. 
9. [p. 410. ed. Douay. Réplique 4 la 
Réponse du Roy de la Grande Bre- 
tagne, liv. i. chap. 62. p. 565. ed. Paris, 
1620.] 


Distinction to be observed among those who hold erroneous doctrines, 349 


#. “The lady which doubted,” said the Bishop to me,' ie 
“may be better saved in it than you.” Rp = 
[A.C.p.64.] 
1perQ@ ” 
%. I said soindeed. ‘ Mark that too.” Where yet, by the doe 
way, these words, “than you,” do not suppose person only. has cy 
For I will “judge no man, that hath another Master to the: 3 τὸ 


stand or fall to.” But they suppose calling and sufficiency 
in the person: “than you,” that is, “than any man of 1 xiv. 
your calling and knowledge,” of whom more is required. ἢ 

And then no question of the truth of this speech, “That that 

person may better be saved,” that is easier, “than you;” 

than any man that knows so much of truth, and opposes 

against it—as you and others of your calling do. How far 

you know truth, other men may judge by your proofs and 

causes of knowledge ; but how far you oppose truth known 

to you, that is within, and no man can know but God and 
yourselves. Howsoever, where the foundation is but held, 

“there, for ordinary men, it 1s not the vivacity of understand- 

ing, but the simplicity of believing, that makes them safe.’’? 

For S. Augustine speaks there, of men in the Church; and 

no man ° can be said simply to be out of the visible Church, 


Ὁ Ceteram [quippe| turbam non 
intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi 
simplicitas, tutissimam facit. — 8. 
Augustin. contra [epistolam quam vo- 
cant] Fundament. cap. iy. [Op., tom. 
viii. col. 153. B.]—[ τοῖς μὲν yap τοῦ 
λαοῦ τάχα ἂν Kal συγγινώσκοιμεν τοῦτο 
πάσχουσιν, ovs σώζει πολλάκις τὸ 
ἀβασάνιστον. “ Omission of inquiry 
many times sayes the people.”—%S. 
Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xxi. [de laudi- 
bus magni Athanasii, § 24. Op., tom. 
i. p. 401. C.] 

ὁ “Heretics ... in respect of the pro- 
fession of sundry divine verities, which 
still they retain in common with right 
believers, [in respect of the power of 
order, and degree of ministry, which 
receiving in the Church they carry 
out with them, and sacraments, which 
by virtue thereof they do administer, 
they] still pertain to the Church.” 
—Field, Of the Church, Book i. chap. 
14. [p. 20.] — [Tertio notabimus,] 
posse aliquem ecclesiz: membrum esse 
secundum quid, qui tamen simpliciter 
non est; [ut Althiops dici potest albus 
propter dentes. Sic propter charac- 
terem baptismalem quadamtenus ad 


militantem ecclesiam pertinet, sicut 
transfuga ad ducis sui exercitum.... 
Sic enim] heereticus, recedens a fide, 
non dimittitur ut paganus, sed propter 
baptismi characterem punitur ut trans- 
fuga, et excommunicationis gladio 
spiritualiter occiditur ; [reconciliatus 
vero non ut infidelis baptizatur, sed 
ut Christianus, per impositionem 
manuum, in corpus ecclesiz redinte- 
gratur.| — Stapleton. Controy. i. de 
Keclesia in se, Quest. ii. Artic. 8. 
Notabile 3. [Op., tom. i. p. 529. B.] 
—‘ The Apostle pronounces some 
gone out (1 John ii. 19.) from the 
fellowship of sound [and sincere] be- 
lievers, when as yet the Christian 
religion they had not utterly cast off. 
Tn like sense and meaning throughout 
all ages heretics have justly been 
hated as branches cut off from the 
true Vine, yet only so far forth cut off, 
as the heresies have extended. For 
both heresy and many other crimes 
which wholly sever from God, do 
sever from the Church of God, but in 
part only.”—Hooker, Eccles. Polit. 
Book vy. ch. Ixyiii. [ὃ 6. Works, vol. ii. 
pp. 472, 473.] : 


350 


Conrrrence that is baptized and holds the foundation. 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


Matt. xviii. 
Mis 


Obstinate Teachers of false doctrine without excuse, but their 


And as it is the 
“simplicity of believing that makes them safe,” yea safest ; so 
is it sometimes a “quickness of understanding,” that, loving 
itself and some bye respects too well, makes men take up an 
unsafe way about the faith. So that there is no question, 
but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church, when 
their “leaders, unless they repented before death, were 
lost.”4 And 8. Augustine’s rule will be true, That in all 
corruptions of the Church, “there will ever be a difference 
between an heretic, and a plain well-meaning man that is 
misled and believes an heretic.”’® Yet here let me add this 
for fuller expression: This must be understood of such 
leaders and heretics as refuse! to “ hear the Church’s ” 
instruction, or to use all the means they can to come to the 
knowledge of the truth. For else, if they do this, err they 
may, but heretics they are not; as is most manifest in 
S. Cyprian’s’ case of rebaptization. For here, though he 
were a main leader in that error, yet all the whole Church 
grant him safe, and his followers" in danger of damnation. 
But if any man be a leader, and a teaching heretic, and will 
add schism! to heresy, and be obstinate in both, he without 


4 Tpsis magistris pereuntibus: nisi 
forte ante mortem resipuerint.—Luth. 
de Serv. Arbit. [The present editor has 
not been able to recover this reference. } 
—[Planum est etiam,] plus peccare 
heeresiarchas, [qui de fide catholica 
recedentes, novas heereses fingunt, ] 
quam illos, qui a principio aliquam 
heresim sunt secuti—Supplement. 
{in tert. part.] Thom. [Aquin. Summ. ] 
Quest. | xcix. A[rtic.] 4.in conclus. 

© Si mihi, [ Honorate, | unum atque 
idem videretur esse, heereticus, et 
eredens hereticis homo, &c. —S. 
Augustin. lib. de Utilitat. Credend. 
cap. i. [Op., tom. viii. col. 45. A. ] 

f [Sunt enim heretici, quod faten- 
dum est,] qui [singulis, vel non 
multo amplius, dogmatibus] oppug- 
nant regulam veritatis.—S. Augustin. 
lib. de Heeresibus, [ad Quodvultdeum, | 
versus finem, [in perorat. Op., tom. 
Vili. col. 27. D. | 

g Cyprianus Beatus, et Martyr.— 
8. Augustin. de Baptismo contra 
Donatistas, lib. i. cap. xviii. [Op., 
tom. ix. p. 98. F. His words are: 
Exstant beati martyris Cypriani in 


ejus literis magna documenta, ut ad 
illum jam veniam, de cujus sibi 
auctoritate isti carnaliter blandiun- 
tur, cum ejus caritate spiritaliter 
perimantur. ] 

h Donatistee vero, qui de Cypriani 
auctoritate sibi carnaliter blandiun- 
tur.—S. Augustin. de Baptismo contra 
Donatist. lib. i. cap. xviii. [ubi sup. 
note &.|—Nimium miseri, et, nisi se 
corrigant, a semetipsis omnino dam- 
nati, qui hoe in tanto viro eligunt imi- 
tari, &e.—Ibid. cap. xix. [60]. 95. A. ] 

i [Sed post causam (circa accusa- 
tum Cecilium) cum eo dictam atque 
finitam, | falsitatis rei deprehensi Do- 
natiste, pertinaci dissensione firmata, 
in heresim schisma verterunt.—S. 
Augustin. de Heeresib. Heres. lxix. 
[Op., tom. viii. col. 21. D.]—[ Videns 
autem diabolus templa daemonum 
deseri, et in nomen liberantis Media- 
toris currere genus humanum, here- 
ticos movit,] qui sub vocabulo Chris- 
tiano doctrine resisterent Christiane. 
—S. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. 
cap. 51. in prin. [Op., tom. vii. col. 
533. B.] 


sincere and simple Followers may be in a state of salvation. 


repentance must needs be lost; while many that succeed 
him in the error only, without the obstinacy, may be saved. 
For, they which are misled and swayed with the current of 
the! time, hold the same errors with their misleaders, yet 
not supinely, but with all sober diligence to find out the 
truth; not pertinaciously, but with all readiness to submit to 
truth, so soon as it shall be found; not uncharitably, but 
retaining an internal communion with the whole visible 
Church of Christ in the fundamental points of faith, and 
performance of the acts of charity; not factiously, but with 
an earnest desire and a sincere endeavour, as their place and 
calling gives them means, for a perfect union and com- 
munion of all Christians in truth as well as peace. I say, 
these, however misled, are neither heretics nor schismatics 
in the sight of God, and are therefore in a state of salvation. 
And were not this true divinity, it would go very hard with 
many poor Christian souls, that have been and are misled 
on all sides, in these and other distracted times of the 
Church of Christ ; whereas, thus habituated in themselves, 
they are, by God’s mercy, safe in the midst of those waves, 
in which their misleaders perish. I pray you “mark this ;” 
and so, by God’s grace, will I: for our* reckoning will be 
heavier, if we thus mislead on either side, than theirs that 
follow us. But, I see, I must look to myself; for you are 
secure. For, 


1. “Ὁ. White,”* said I, “hath secured me, that none 
of our errors be damnable, so long as we hold them 


not against our conscience. And I hold none against 


my conscience.” 


* [Here the Chaplain taxeth the Jesuit for falsely relating 1). White's 
answer, and saith he hath spoken with D. White, who avows this and no other 
answer. ‘He was asked in the Conference, Whether Papists’ errors were funda- 
mental? ΠῸ this he gave answer by a distinction of persons which held and 
professed the errors ; namely, that the errors were fundamental, reductive, ‘by a 
reducement,’ if they who embraced them did pertinaciously adhere unto them, 
having sufficient means to be better informed. Nay, further, that they were 


k Qui etsi ipsi postmodum ad eccle- 
siam redeunt, restituere tamen eos, 
et secum reyocare non possunt, qui 
ab eis seducti, et foris morte pree- 
venti extra ecclesiam sine commu- 
nicatione et pace perierunt; quorum 


anime in die judicii de ipsorum 
manibus expetentur, qui perditionis 
auctores et duces extiterunt. — 8. 
Cyprian. [ Epist. xxii. ad Stephanum 
papam de Concilio, olim] lib. ii. 
Epist. i. ([Op., p. 129. ed. Benedict. ] 


351 


Srorion 
XXXVI. 


1 [οἵ time 
Se 5 Lb 
1673, and 
1686. | 


[A.C.p.66.] 


352 


Dr. White’s account of what he admitted at the First Conference. 


Coyrgrence materially, inthe kind and nature of them, ‘leaven, dross, hay, and stubble ;’ yet 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


§ 87. 


he thought withal, that such as were misled by education, or long custom, or 
over-valuing the sovereignty of the Roman Church, and did in simplicity of 
heart embrace them, might by their general repentance, and faith in the merits 
of Christ, attended with charity and other virtues, find mercy at God’s hands. 
But that he should say, signanter et expresse, that none of yours or your 
fellows’ errors were damnable, so long as you hold them not against your 
conscience,—- that he utterly disavows,” &c. To this the Jesuit answereth ; first, 
That he did not, in this his Relation, say that D. White did, signanter and 
expressly, say these precise words, “ None of your's or your fellows’ errors are 
damnable.” Secondly, he saith, that D. White did not signanter and expressly 
make this precise answer which now he maketh, nor scarce any part of it; as 
appeareth by the Relation of the first Conference, made by the Jesuit in fresh 
memory, and conferred with D. White himself, who did not at that time 
contradict it in this point. 

Thirdly, the reason which moved the Jesuit to say, that 1). White had 
secured him, as is said in this Relation, was for that D. White in the said 
first Conference granted, that there must be one or other Church, continually 
visible, which had in all ages taught the unchanged faith of Christ in all points 
fundamental; and, being urged to assign such a Church, D. White expressly 
granted that he could not assign and shew any Church different from the 
Roman, which held in all ages all points fundamental. Whence the Jesuit 
gathered his opinion to be, that the Roman Church held and taught in all 
ages unchanged faith in all fundamental points, and did not in any age err in 
any point fundamental. Whereupon the Jesuit asked, Whether errors in points 
not fundamental were damnable? D. White answered, they were not, so 
long as one did not hold them against his conscience; which answer he 
repeated again to f#1. 19. asking the same question. Out of all which the 
Jesuit did collect, that D. White's opinion was, that the Roman Church 
held all points fundamental, and only erred in points not fundamental ; which 
he accounted not damnable, so long as one did not hold them against his 
conscience ; and thereupon the Jesuit might well say, that 1). White had 
given security to him, who holdeth no faith different from the Roman, nor 
contrary to his own conscience. 

As for D. White’s saying he could discern but small love of truth, and few 
signs of grace in the Jesuit, I will let it pass as the censure of an adversary, 
looking upon the Jesuit with eyes of dislike; which is not to be regarded 
further than to return upon him, not a like censure, but, a charitable wish 
that he may have no less love of truth, nor fewer signs of grace, than the 
Jesuit is thought to have, by those who know him better than D. White doth.— 
A. C. marg. note to p. 66, &c.] 


%. I.—It seems, then, you have two securities : D. White’s 
assertion, and your conscience. What assurance D. White 
gave you, I cannot tell of myself; nor, as things stand, may 
1 rest upon your Relation. It may be you use him no 
better than you do me. And sure it is so. For I have 
since spoken with D. White, the late Reverend B. of Ely, 
and he avows this, and no other answer. ‘“ He was asked in 
the conference between you, ‘Whether popish errors were 
fundamental ?? To this he gave an answer, by distinction of 
the persons which held and professed the errors—namely, 
that the errors were fundamental reductive, ‘by a reducement,’ 
if they which embraced them did pertinaciously adhere to 
them, having sufficient means to be better informed: nay, 


A. (δὲ unfair statement of Dr. White’s alleged concessions. 353 


farther, that they were materially, and in the very kind and _Srcrrow 
nature of them, ‘leaven, dross, hay, and stubble” Yet he ee 
thought withal, that such as were misled by education, fe τ 
or long custom, or over-valuing the sovereignty of the 
Roman Church, and did in simplicity of heart embrace 
them, might by their general repentance, and faith in the 
merit of Christ, attended with charity and other virtues, 
find mercy at God’s hands. But that he should say sig- 
nanter, and expressly, That none either of yours or your 
fellows’ errors were damnable, so long as you hold them 
not against conscience, that he utterly disavows. You 
delivered nothing to extort such a confession from him. 
And for yourself, he could observe but small love of truth, 
few signs of grace in you,” as he told me: “yet he will not 
presume to judge you, or your salvation ; ‘it is the Word of John xii. 
Christ that must judge you at the latter day.’”? For your τ 
conscience, you are the happier in your error, that you hold 
nothing against it; especially if you speak not against it 
while you say so. But this no man can know but yourself, 
“ For no man knows the thoughts of a man, but the spirit of 1 Cor. ii. 
a man that is within him:” to which I leave you. 1M, 

II.—To this A.C. replies, And first he grants, “that A.C. p.67. 
D. White did not, signanter and expressly, say these precise 
words.” So then here is his plain confession: “ Not these 
precise words.” Secondly, he saith that “neither did D. 
White stgnanter and expressly make the answer above men- 
tioned.” But to this I can make no answer, since I was not 
present at the first or second Conference. “Thirdly, he 
saith that the reason which moved the Jesuit, to say D. 
White had secured him, was because the said Doctor had 
granted, in his first Conference with the Jesuit, these things 
following: First, That there must be one or other Church 
continually visible.’ Though D. White, late Bishop of Ely, 
was more able to answer for himself, yet since he is now 
dead, and is thus drawn into this discourse, I shall, as well 
as I can, do him the right which his learning and pains for 
the Church deserved. And to this first, I grant as well as 
he, “That there must be some one Church or other con- 
tinually visible ; or that the militant Church of Christ 
must always be visible in some particulars, or particular at 

VOL, II.—LAUD. PIN 


354: 


What Dr. White’s concessions really amounted to. 


Conrerence least, express it as you please. For if this be not so, then 


WITH 
FIsHER. 








A.C. p. 67. 


A.C. p. 67. 


A.C. p. 67. 


there may be a time in which there shall not anywhere be 
a visible profession of the name of Christ ; which is contrary 
to the whole scope and promise of the Gospel. 

III.—Well, what then? Why, then A. C. adds, “ That 
D. White confessed that this visible Church had in all ages 
taught that unchanged faith of Christ in all points funda- 
mental.” Ὁ. White had reason to say that the visible 
Church taught so; but that this or that particular visible 
Church did so teach, sure D. White affirmed not; unless in 
case the whole visible Church of Christ were reduced to one 
particular only. 

IV.—But suppose this: what then? Why, then A. C. 
tells us, that “D. White being urged to assign such a 
Church, expressly granted he could assign none different 
from the Roman, which held in all ages all pomts funda- 
mental.” Now here I would fain know, what A. C. means 
by “a Church different from the Roman.” For if he mean 
different in place, it is easy to affirm the Greek Church, 
which, as hath before been proved,! hath ever held and 
taught the foundation in the midst of all her pressures. 
And if he mean different in doctrinal things, and those 
about the faith, he cannot assign the Church of Rome for 
holding them in all ages. But if he mean different in the 
foundation itself, the Creed, then his urging to assign a 
Church is void, be it Rome or any other. For if any other 
Church shall thus differ from Rome, or Rome from itself, as 
to deny this foundation, it doth not, it cannot remain a 
differing Church, sed transit in non ecclesiam, “ but passes 
away into no-Church,” upon the denial of the Creed. 

V.— Now, what A.C. means, he expresses not, nor can I tell ; 
but I may peradventure guess near it, by that which out of 
these premises he would infer. For hence, he tells us, “ he 
gathered that D. White’s opinion was, that the Roman 
Church held and taught in all ages unchanged faith in all 
fundamental points, and did not in any age err im any point 
fundamental.” ‘This is very well; for A. C. confesses, he 
did but “ gather” that this was Doctor White’s opinion. 
And what if he gathered that which grew not there, nor 


1 Sect. ix. [vide supra, p. 27, &c.] 


Distinction between holding, and truly expounding, fundamentals. 


thence? For suppose all the premises true, yet no cart- 
rope can draw this conclusion out of them: and then 
all A. C.’s labour is lost. For grant some one Church or 
other must still be visible; and grant that this visible 
Church held all fundamentals of the faith in all ages; and 
grant again that D. White could not assign any Church 
differing from the Roman that did this: yet this will not 
follow, That therefore the Roman did it. And that because 
there is more in the conclusion than in the premises. 


305 


SECTION 
XXXVII. 


For A. C.’s conclusion is, “ That in D. White’s opinion the A.C. p. 67. 


Roman Church held and taught in all ages unchanged faith 
in all fundamental points.” And so far, perhaps, the con- 
clusion may stand, taking “ fundamental points” in their 
literal sense, as they are expressed in Creeds and approved 
Councils. But then he adds, “and did not in any age err 
in any point fundamental.” Now this can never follow 
out of the premises before laid down. For, say some 
one Church or other may still be visible; and that visible 
Church hold all fundamental points in all ages ; and no man 
be able to name another Church different from the Church 
of Rome that hath done this: yet it follows not therefore, 
That the Church of Rome did not err in any age in any 
point fundamental. For a Church may hold the funda- 
mental point literally, and, as long as it stays there, be 
without control; and yet err grossly, dangerously, nay, 
damnably, in the exposition of it. And this is the Church 
of Rome’s case. For most true it is, it hath in all ages 
maintained the faith unchanged in the expression of the 
Articles themselves; but it hath in the exposition both of 
Creeds and Councils quite changed, and lost the sense and 
the meaning of some of them. So the faith is in many 
things changed, both for life and belief, and yet seems the 
same. Now that which deceives the world is, That because 
the bark is the same, men think this old decayed tree is as 
sound as it was at first, and not weather-beaten in any age. 
But when they make me believe that painting is true beauty, 
I will believe, too, that Rome is not only sound but 
beautiful. 


VI.—But A.C. goes on and tells us, “ That hereupon the A.C. p. 67. 


Jesuit asked, Whether errors in points not fundamental were 
AA2 


356 


What follows upon Dr. White’s concessions as stated by A.C. ; 


Conrerencr damnable? And that 1). White answered, they were not, 


WITH 
FIsHERr. 





A.C. p. 68. 


unless they were held against conscience.” It is true, that 
error in points not fundamental is the more damnable, 
the more it is held against conscience; but it is true 
too, that error in points not fundamental may be damnable 
to some men, though they hold it not against their con- 
science. As, namely, when they hold an error in some 
dangerous points, which grate upon the foundation, and 
yet will neither seek the means to know the truth, nor 
accept and believe truth when it is known; especially being 
men able to judge, which I fear is the case of too many 
at this day in the Roman Church. Out of all which, A.C. 
tells us, “the Jesuit collected, that D. White’s opinion 
was, That the Roman Church held all points fundamental, 
and only erred in points not fundamental; which he ac- 
counted not damnable, so long as he did not hold them 
against his conscience: and that thereupon he, said D. 
White, had secured him, since he held no faith different 
from the Roman, nor contrary to his conscience.” Here, 
again, we have but A. C.’s and the Jesuit’s collection: 
but if the Jesuit or A. C. will collect amiss, who can 
help it? 

VII.—I have spoken before in this very paragraph to all 
the passages of A. C. as supposing them true; and set down 
what is to be answered to them, in case they prove so. 
But now it is most apparent by D. White’s answer, set 
down before at large," that he never said “ that the Church 
of Rome erred only in points not fundamental,” as A.C. 
would have it; but that he said the contrary—namely, 
“that some errors of that Church were fundamental re- 
ductive, ‘by a reducement,’ if they which embraced them did 
pertinaciously adhere to them, having sufficient means of 
information.” And again expressly, that he did not say, 
“ that none were damnable, so long as they were not held 
against conscience.’ Now where is A. C.’s collection? 
For if a Jesuit, or any other, may collect propositions, which 
are not granted him, nay, contrary to those which are granted 
him, he may infer what he please. And he is much to 
blame that will not infer a strong conclusion for himself, 


m Sect. xxxvii. No. 1. [vide supra, p. 352.] 


but in fact Dr. White made no such concessions. 


that may frame his own premises, say his adversary what he 
will. And just so doth A.C. bring in his conclusion, to 
secure himself of salvation, “ because he holds no faith but 
the Roman, nor that contrary to his conscience :” presup- 
posing it granted, that the Church of Rome errs only 
in not fundamentals, and such errors not damnable, which 
is absolutely and clearly denied by D. White. To this 
A.C. says nothing, but that D. White “ did not give this 
answer at the Conference.’ I was not present at the Con- 
ference between them, so to that I can say nothing as a 
witness. But I think all that knew D. White will believe 
his affirmation as soon as the Jesuit’s, to say no more. 
And whereas A. C. refers to the Relation of the Conference 
between D. White and M. Fisher; most true it is, there 
D. White is charged to have made that answer twice.” 
But all this rests upon the credit of A. C. only: for he 
is said to have made that Relation too, as well as this.° 
And against his credit I must engage D. White’s, who hath 
avowed another answer, as before is set down.? 

VITI.—And since A.C. relates to that Conference, which 
it seems he makes some good account of, I shall here, once 
for all, take occasion to assure the reader, that most of the 
points of moment in that Conference with D. White are 
repeated again and again, and urged in this Conference, or 
the Relation of A.C., and are here answered byme. For in- 
stance: (1.) In the Relation of the first Conference, the Jesuit 
takes on him to prove the unwritten word of God out of 
2 Thess. ii. (page 15.) And so he doth in the Relation of this 
Conference with me, (p.50.) (2.) Inthe first, he stands upon 
it, “ That the Protestants upon their principles cannot hold, 
that all fundamental points of faith are contained in the 
Creed,” (p. 19.) And so he doth in this, (p. 46.) (9.) In the 
first, he would fain, through Master Rogers’ sides, wound the 
Church of England, as if she were unsettled in the article 


n A, C. in his Relation of that Con- 
ference, p. 26. [“ ΜΠ. 39. marvelling 
αὖ 1). White’s answer, asked him again 
the same question, saying: ‘ May one 
be saved that holdeth error in points 
of faith, not fundamental, supposing 
he hold not against his conscience ? 
Ὁ. White said: ‘ Yes.’”—A. C.’s Re- 
lation of the First Conference, pre- 


serving the original paging, by which 
the references in the present pp. 357, 
858, and elsewhere, may be compared, 
is reprinted at the beginning of the 
present volume. | 

© For so it is said in the Title-page 
by A. C. [ubi supra, p. 1. note *.] 

P Sect. xxxvil. No. 1. [vide supra, 
p. 352.] 


357 


Srcrron 
XXXVII. 


INCE D5 67: 


ἊΝ ΟΣ. Ole 


358 A.C. the author of the Relations both of First, and Third, Conference. 


Conrerencz Of Christ’s Descent into Hell, (p. 21.) And he endeavours 


WITH 
FIsHEr. 


the same in this, (p. 46.) (4.) In the first, he is very earnest 
to prove, “Ταῦ the schism was made by the Protestants,” (Ὁ. 
23.) And he is as earnest for it in this, (p.55.) (5.) In the first, 
he lays it for a ground, “That corruption of manners is no 
just cause of separation from faith or Church,” (p. 24.) 
And the same ground he lays in this, (p.55.) (6.) In the first 
he will have it, “That the Holy Ghost gives continual and 
infallible assistance to the Church,” (p. 24.) And just so 
will he have it in this, (p.53.) (7.) In the first, he makes much 
ado about the “ erring of the Greek Church,” (p.28.) And 
as much makes he in this, (p. 44.) (8.) In the first, he makes 
a great noise about the place in S. Augustine, “ Ferendus 
est disputator errans,” &c. (pp. 18 and 24.) And so doth 
he here also, (p. 45.) (9.) In the first, he would make his 
proselytes believe, that he and his cause have mighty 
advantage by that sentence of S. Bernard, “ It is intolerable 
pride ;” and that of S. Augustine, “It is insolent madness 
to oppose the doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church,” 
(p. 25.) And twice he is at the same art in this, (pp. 56 
and 73.) (10.) In the first, he tells us, That Calvin con- 
fesses, “that in the Reformation there was a departure 
from the whole world,”’4 (p. 25.) And though I conceive 
Calvin spake this but of the Roman world, and of no 
voluntary but a forced departure, and wrote this to 
Melanchthon to work unity among the Reformers, not any 
way to blast the Reformation ; yet we must hear of it again 
in this, (p. 56.) (11.) But over and above the rest, one 
place with his own gloss upon it pleases him extremely ; 
it is out of S. Athanasius’s Creed: “That whosoever doth 
not hold it entire—that is,” saith he, “in all points; and 
inviolate—that is,” saith he, “in the true, unchanged, and 
uncorrupted sense proposed unto us by the pastors of his 
Catholic Church,” “without doubt he shall perish everlast- 
ingly.” This he hath almost verbatim in the first, (p.20;) and 
in the epistle of the publisher of that Relation to the reader, 
under the name of W. I. [p. 2] ; and then again the very same 
in this, if not with some more disadvantage to himself, (p. 70.) 


4 [Plusquam enim absurdum est,]  cipia alios ab aliis dissilire. ]|—Calvin. 
postquam discessionem a toto mundo Epist. 141. [ad Melanchthonem, p- 
facere coacti sumus, [inter ipsa prin- 273, ed. Hanovie, 1597. ] 


The same arguments continually repeated by them. 359 


And perhaps, had I leisure to search after them, more points ὅποιον 
than these. Now the reasons which moved me to set down ***V1I- 
these particulars thus distinctly, are two. The one, that [A.C.p.68.] 
whereas the Jesuit’ affirms, that in a second Conference all 

the speech was about particular matters, and little or 
nothing about the main and great general point of a con- 

tinual, infallible, visible Church, in which that lady required 
satisfaction ; and that therefore this third Conference was 

held: it may hereby appear that the most material, both 

points and proofs, are upon the matter the very same in all 

the three Conferences,—though little be related of the second 
Conference by A. C., as appears in the preface of the pub- 

lisher, W. I., to the reader. So this tends to nothing but 
ostentation and show. The other is, that whereas these 

men boast so much of their cause, and their ability to defend 

it, it cannot but appear by this, and their handling of other 

points in divinity, that they labour, indeed, but no otherwise 

than like a horse ina mill; round about in the same circle ; 

no farther at night than at noon; the same thing over and 

over again; from Tu es Petrus, to Pasce oves—from “ Thou 

art Peter,’ to “ Dothou feed My sheep,” and back again the 

“same way. 


¥#. The Lady asked, Whether she might be saved in 
the Protestant faith? “ Upon my soul,” * said the 


* [The Chaplain noteth that the %. was confident, and had reason of his 
confidence. “ For,” saith he, “to believe the Scripture and Creed in the sense of 
the ancient Primitive Church; to receive the first four General Councils so 
much magnified by antiquity; to believe all points of doctrine generally 
received, as fundamental in the Church of Christ—is a faith in which to live 
and die, cannot but give salvation.” ‘“ And I would fain see,” saith the Chaplain, 
“ any one point maintained by the Church of England, that can be proved to 
depart from the foundation.” To which I answer, first, That if to say thus be 
a sufficient cause of confidence, [ marvel why the Chaplain maketh such 
difficulty to be confident of the salvation of Roman Catholics, who believe all 
this in a far better manner than Protestants do; neither can they be proved 
to depart from the foundation so much as Protestants do, who, denying infallible 
authority to all the pastors of the Catholic Church assembled in a General 
Council, do in effect deny infallibility to the whole Catholic Church, which is 
bound to hear and believe what is prescribed by her pastors ina General 
Council, and ordinarily doth so believe and practise. Secondly, I ask how 
Protestants, who admit no certain and infallible means and rule of faith 
beside only Scripture, can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entire 
Scripture and Creed, and the four first General Councils, &c. in the same 
uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed? What text of 





r In the beginning of the Conference [with Laud] set out by A. C. [uli 
supra, p. 2. ] 


360 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FISHER. 


A. Cs confidence in the security of his profession. 


%. “you may.” “ Upon my soul,” ἢ said I, “ there 
is but one saving faith, and that is the Roman.” 


Scripture doth tell, that Protestants who now live, do believe all this; or that 
all this is expressed in those particular Bibles, or in the writings of the 
Fathers or Councils, which are now in the Protestants’ hands; or that Pro- 
testants do rightly understand the sense of all which is expressed in their 
books according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church and 
the Fathers which were present at the four first General Councils? or that 
all, and only, those points which Protestants do account to be fundamental and 
necessary to be expressly known by all, were so accounted by the Primitive 
Church? I suppose, neither the 38. nor the Chaplain can produce any text of 
Scripture sufficient to assure one of all this: and therefore he had need to 
seek some other infallible rule and means, by which he may know these things 
infallibly, or else he hath no reason to be so confident, as to adventure his 
soul, that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant faith. A. C. 
marg. note to p. 68.] 

* [Here I note, that the Jesuit was as confident for his part as the B. for his; 
but with this difference, that the %. had not sufficient reason of his confidence, 
as I have declared: but the Jesuit had so much reason, both out of express 
Scriptures and Fathers, and the infallible authority of the Church, that 
the %. himself then did not, nor his Chaplain now doth not, tax the Jesuit of 
any rashness: but the Chaplain expressly granteth, that there is but one 
saving faith; and the 33. did, as was related, grant that the Lady might be 
saved in the Roman faith, which is as much as the Jesuit did take upon his 
soul. Only the Chaplain saith, without any proof, that we have many dan- 
gerous errors; but he neither tells us which they be, nor why he thinketh them 
dangerous, but leaveth us to look to our own souls; and so we do, and have no 
cause to doubt; because we do not hold any new device of our own or any 
other man, or any thing contrary, but all most conformable, to Scriptures 
interpreted by unanime consent of Fathers, and definitions of Councils. 

Which being so, the %. and his Chaplain had need to look to their souls; 
for if there be but one saving faith, as the Chaplain granteth, (and he hath , 
reason, because S. Paul saith, Ephes. iv. (5.) Una jides, “ One faith :” and S. Leo, 
Serm. de Nativit. Nisi wna est fides, non est, “Unless it be one, it is not faith :”) 
and this “one faith” was once the Roman—which also yet is, as the B. 
granteth, a saving faith, or else he ought not to have granted that one may be 
saved living and dying in it,—I see not how they can have their souls saved 
without they entirely embrace this faith, being the Catholic faith, which, 
as 8S. Athanasius (in Symbol.) affirmeth, “ unless one hold entire,” (that is, 
every point of it,) “ and inviolate,” (that is, believing all in right sense, and for 
the true formal reason of divine revelation sufficiently applied to our under- 
standing by the infallible authority of the Catholic Church, proposing to us 
by her pastors this revelation,) “ without doubt he shall perish for ever.” In 
which sort, if the 38. and his Chaplain did believe any one article, they, finding 
the same formal reason in all, and applied sufficiently by the same means to 
all, would easily believe all. But so long as they do not believe all in this 
sort, but will, as all heretics do, make choice of what they will and what they 
will not believe, without relying upon the infallible authority of the Catholic 
Church, they cannot have that one soul-saving faith, which all good Catholic 
Christians have, in any one article of faith. For although they believe the 
same truth which other good Catholics do in some articles, yet not believing 
them for the same formal reason of divine revelation sufficiently applied by 
infallible Church-authority, but either for some other formal reason, or at least 
not for this reason sufficiently applied, they cannot be said to have one and the 
same infallible divine faith which other good Catholic Christians have, who do 
believe those articles, not for any other formal reason beside the divine 
revelation applied sufficiently, and made known to them, not by their own 
fancy, or tbe fallible authority of human deductions, but by the infallible 
authority of the Church of God, that is, of men infallibly assisted by the 
Spirit of God, as all lawfully called, continued, and confirmed General Councils 
are assisted. 

Whence I gather, that although every thing defined to be a divine truth 


The Abp.’s confidence in the Ch. of Engl. as holding fundamentals. 361 


in General Councils, is not absolutely necessary to be expressly known and Sxorron 
actually believed, as some other truths are, by all sorts: yet no man may, after XX XVIII. 
knowledge that they are thus defined, doubt deliberately, and much less obsti- —————— 
nately deny, the truth of any thing so defined. For every such doubt and 
denial is a breach from that one saving faith which other good Christians have, 
in regard it taketh away infallible credit from the Church ; and so the divine 
revelation being not by it sufficiently applied, it cannot, according to the 
ordinary course of God’s providence, breed infallible belief in us. For, as 
S. Paul, Rom. x. (14, 15.) saith, “ How shall they believe unless they hear, 
how shall they hear without a preacher, how shall they preach,” to wit, 
infallibly, “ unless they be sent,” to wit, from God, and infallibly assisted by 
His Spirit? And if a whole General Council, defining what is divine truth, be 
not believed to be sent and assisted by God’s Spirit, and consequently of 
infallible credit, what man in the world can be said to be of infallible credit? 
Or if such a Council, lawfully called, continued, and confirmed, may err 
in defining any cne divine truth, how can we be infallibly certain of any other 
truth defined by it? For if it may err in one, why not in another and another, 
and so in all? or how can we, according to the ordinary course, be infallibly 
assured that it erreth in one and not in another, when it equally, by one and 
the same authority, defineth both to be divine truths? For if we leave this to 
be examined by any private man, this examination, not being infallible, had 
need to be examined by another; and this by another, without end, or ever 
coming to infallible certainty, necessarily required in that one faith which is 
necessary to salvation, and to that peace and unity which ought to be in the 
Church. It is not, therefore, as the Chaplain would persuade, the fault of 
Councils’ definitions, but the pride of such as will prefer and not submit their 
private judgments, that lost and continueth the loss of peace and unity of the 
Church, and the want of certainty in that one aforesaid soul-saving faith ; the 
which, how far it doth extend, is indeed, as the Chaplain, p. 73, confesseth, no 
work for his pen, but is to be learned of that one Holy, Catholic, Apostolic 
always Visible, and Infallible, Roman Church, of which the Lady, once 
doubting, resteth now fully satisfied, that in it she may learn all truth 
necessary to salvation, and that out of it there is no ordinary means sufficient 
to teach her the right way of salvation. And therefore the Jesuit might well 
say, as he did in the Relation, that the Lady was, by this and a former 
Conference, satisfied of the truth of Roman religion.—A. C. marg. note to 


Ρ. 69. ] 


I.—2. So, it seems, I was confident for the faith professed § 38. 
in the Church of England, else I would not have taken the 
salvation of another upon my soul. And sure I had reason 
of this my confidence; for to believe the Scripture and the 
Creeds, to believe these in the sense of the ancient primitive 
Church, to receive the four great General Councils so much 
magnified by antiquity, to beheve all points of doctrine, 
generally received as fundamental in the Church of Christ, 
is a faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation. 
And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure 
of my soul upon that faith. Besides, in all the points of 
doctrine that are controverted between us, I would fain see 
any one point maintained by the Church of England that 
can be proved to depart from the foundation. You have 
many dangerous errors about the very foundation, in that 
which you call the Roman faith: but there I leave you to 


362 


A certain latitude permitted even in things de fide. 


Coyrerece look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce. Yet 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


A.C. p. 68 


this is true, too, that there is “ but one saving faith.” But 
then every thing which you call de fide, “ of the faith,” because 
some Council or other hath defined it, is not such a breach 
from that “ one saving faith,” as that he which expressly 
believes it not—nay, as that he which believes the contrary— 
is excluded from salvation, so his disobedience therewhile 
offer no violence to the peace of the Church, nor the charity 
which ought to be among Christians.* And Bellarmine is 
forced to grant this: “There are many things de fide, which 
are not absolutely necessary to salvation.” * Therefore 
there is a latitude in the faith, especially in reference to 
different men’s salvation." To set bounds to this, and 
strictly to define it for particular men—Just thus far you 
must believe in every particular, or incur damnation—is no 
work for my pen.* These two things I am sure of: one, That 
your peremptory establishing of so many things that are 
remote deductions from the foundation, to be believed as 
matters of faith necessary to salvation, hath, with other 
errors, lost the peace and unity of the Church, for which 
you will one day answer. And the other, That you of Rome 
are gone farther from the foundation of this “one saving 
faith,” than can ever be proved we of the Church of England 
have done. 

II.—But here A.C. bestirs himself, finding that he is 
come upon the point which is indeed most considerable. 
And, first, he answers, “That it is not sufficient to beget 
a confidence in this case, to say we believe the Scriptures 
and the Creeds in the same sense whieh the ancient primi- 


* Sect. xxxii.No. 5. [vide sup, p.250.] 

* Quinto, si esset [vera Calvini sen- 
tentia, maxima pars dogmatum fidei 
in dubium revocari posset : nam] multa 
sunt de fide, qua: non sunt absolute 
necessaria ad salutem.—Bellarmin. de 
Eccles. Militant. lib. iii. cap. 14. § 13. 
[Op., tom. ii. col. 150. A.] 

"(Vides jam quam fatue dixit Wit- 
cleff sapienter debere relinqui tanquam 
impertinens quod Scriptura non ex- 
primit. Quot vidisti jam et audisti 
que sunt de mera fide vel cirea fidem 
quorum contemptores, sicut et con- 
temptores legum divinarum coercendi 
sunt. Respondeamus ergo et dicamus 


latitudinem Christianz credentiz sic 
esse dispositam, ut primam fidem tri- 
buamus scripturis canonicis. Secun- 
dam sub ἰδία definitionibus et consue- 
tudinibus ecclesize catholics, juxta 
illum articulum in Symbolo, Credo 
unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam 
et apostolicam. Post istas habent 
Christiani credere, non quidem sub 
peena perfidize, sed protervize vel crassee 
contumacie, studiosis viris et amato- 
ribus_ veritatis.] — Thom. Waldens. 
Doctrinal. Fidei, [tom. i.] lib. ii. Artie. 
ii. cap. 23. [fol. 107. col. 3.] 

* Sect. xxxviii. No. 8. [vide infra, 
Ρ. 369. ] 


The Anglican more close to the Primitive faith than the Roman is. 


tive Church believed them,” &c.Y Most true, if we only say, 
and do not believe. And let them which believe not, while they 
say they do, look to it on all sides; for on all sides I doubt 
not but such there are. But if we do say it, you are bound 
in charity to believe us, unless you can prove the contrary ; 
for I know no other proof to men of any point of faith, but 
confession of it and subscription to it: and for these par- 
ticulars we have made the one and done the other. So it is 
no bare saying, but you have all the proof that can be had, 
or that ever any Church required: for how far that belief, 
or any other, sinks into a man’s heart, is for none to judge 
but God. 

III.— Next, A.C. answers, “That if to say this be a 
sufficient cause of confidence, he marvels why I make such 
difficulty to be confident of the salvation of Roman Catholics, 
who believe all this in a far better manner than Protestants 
do.” ‘Truly, to say this, is not a sufficient cause; but to say 
and believe it, is. And to take off A.C.’s wonder why 1 
make difficulty—great difficulty—of the salvation of Roman 
Catholics, “who,” he says, ‘ believe all this, and in a far 
better manner than Protestants do,’ I must be bold to tell 
him, that Romanists are so far from believing this in a better 
manner than we do, that, under favour, they believe not part 
of this at all. And this is most manifest: for the Romanists 
dare not believe but as the Roman Church believes; and the 
Roman Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture 
and the Creeds in the sense in the which the ancient primi- 


y Pope Pelagius the Second thought 
it was sufficient ; for when the Bishops 
of Istria deserted his communion 77 
causa trium Capitulorum, he first 
gives them anaccount of his faith, that 
he embraced that faith which the 
Apostles had delivered and the four 
Synods explicated: [Nos enim illam 
fidem predictam tenemus, et cum 
omni puritate conscientiz usque ad 
sanguinis effusionem defendimus, quee 
sub apostolis tradita &c....Unam 
eandemque fidem, que ab apostolis 
tradita, et sanctis patribus et prae- 
dictis quatuor synodisexplanata atque 
confirmata dignoscitur, sincerissime 
teneri atque defendi modis omnibus 
comprobatur.] And then he adds: 
Ubi ergo de fidei firmitate nulla 


vobis poterit quzestio, vel suspicio 
generari, [in unitate fidei, atque in 
sinu sancte matris catholics atque 
apostolicze ecclesiz permanete. ]|—Con- 
cil. tom. iv. p. 473. ed. Paris. [ Concil. 
tom. v. col. 941. 1). col. 942. A.] So, 
then, that Pope thought there could 
be no question made, or suspicion had, 
of any man’s faith that professed that 
faith which the Apostles delivered, as 
it is explicated by those great Coun- 
cils. And yet now with A.C. it is not 
sufficient. Or else he holds the faith 
of our Lord Jesus Christ in such “ re- 
spect of persons,” (contrary to the Apo- 
stle’s rule, S. James ii. 12,) as that pro- 
fession of it which was sufficient for 
Pope Pelagius, shall not be sufficient 
for the poor Protestants. 


363 


Srctron 
XXXVIII. 


A.C. p. 68. 


364 


Conrrrence tive Church received them. 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


In what the Roman differs from the Primitive Church. 


For the primitive Church never 
interpreted Christ’s descent into hell to be no lower than 
limbus patrum; nor did it acknowledge a purgatory in a 
side-part of hell; nor did it ever interpret away half the 
sacrament from Christ’s own institution, which to break, 
Stapleton confesses expressly is a “damnable error ;” ’ nor 
make the intention of the priest of the essence of baptism ; 
nor believe worship due to images ; nor dream of a Transub- 
stantiation, which the learned of the Roman party dare not 
understand properly, for a change of one substance into 
another, for then they must grant that Christ’s real and true 
body is made of the bread, and the bread changed into it, 
which is properly transubstantiation ; nor yet can they ex- 
press it in acredible way, as appears by Bellarmine’s struggle 
about it,* which yet in the end cannot be, or be called, tran- 


Stapleton. vol. iv. p. 1253. Return 
of Untruths upon Bishop Jewell. Art. 2. 
Untruth xlix. fol. 44. [ubisup. p. 288. 
note *.| 

« [Eeclesiz igitur sententia est, 
rationem proximam et propriam, cur 
sit in Eucharistia verum Domini cor- 
pus, non esse assumptionem panis ad 
personam Verbi, neque ubiquitatem, 
neque simplicem, et quasi localem, 
unionem panis cum corpore, neque 
mutationem partialem panis in corpus, 
sed] totalem conversionem substantize 
panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem 
Domini.— Bellarmin. de [ Sacrament. ] 
Kuchar. lib. iii. cap.18. §1. [Op., 
tom. iii. col. 615. D.|—[Queestio ulte- 
rius restat propria Theologorum Scho- 
lasticorum, an scilicet, et qua rationeid 
sufficiat, ut asseramus vere et proprie 
hic esse] substantialem conversionem 
seu transubstantiationem, sicut Ecclesia 
appellat.—Gregor. de Valent. Disp. 
{General.] vi. [de Sacrament. Eucha- 
rist. ] Q{ueest. | iii. [de Praesentia Christi 
in Eucharist. |] Punct. 3. [Qualis sit illa 
conyersio panis et vini in corpus et 
sanguinem Dom. §1. Op.,] tom. iv. 
[col. 1038. A. ed. Paris. 1609.]|—Now 
you shall see what stuff Bellarmine 
makes of this. Conversio panis in 
corpus Domini, nee est productiva, 
nec conservativa, sed adductiva. Nam 
corpus Domini preexistit ante conver- 
sionem, sed non sub speciebus panis. 
Conversio igitur non facit, ut corpus 
Christi simpliciter esse incipiat, sed 
ut incipiat esse sub speciebus panis, 
&e.—Bellarmin. de Euchay. lib. iii. 


cap. 18. § 11. [ubi sup. p. 322. note "]. 
So, upon the whole matter, there shall 
be atotal conversion of the bread into 
the body of Christ. And yet there 
shall be no conversion at all, but a 
bringing of the body of Christ, before 
preexistent, to be now under the 
species of bread, where before it was 
not. Now this is merely transloca- 
tion, it is not transubstantiation. 
And I would have Bellarmine, or any 
Jesuit for him, show where conver- 
sio adductiva is read in any good 
author. But when Bellarmine comes 
to the Recognition of his works upon 
this place, he tells us, “that some 
excepted against him, as if this were 
translocation, rather than transubstan- 
tiation.” So in this charge upon him 
I am not alone; and fain would he 
shift off this, but it will not be. But 
while he is at it, he runs into two pretty 
errors, beside the main one. The first 
is, “ That the body of Christ in the 
sacrament begins to be non ut in loco, 
sed ut substantia sub accidentibus.” 
Now, Ἰοὺ Bellarmine, or A. C. for him, 
give me any one instance, that a 
bodily substance under accidents is, 
or can be, anywhere, and not μέ tn loco, 
‘as in some place ;” and he says some- 
what. The second is, “That some 
fathers and others seem,” he says, but 
I see it not, “ to approve of his man- 
ner of speech of conversion by adduc- 
tion.” And he tells us for this, that 
Bonaventure says expressly, “ In tran- 
substantiatione fit, ut quod erat ali- 
cubi, sine sui mutatione fit alibi.” 


The Church of England has not departed from the foundation. 


substantiation, and is that which at this day is a scandal to 
both Jew and Gentile, and the Church of God.” 


365 


Srction 
XXXVIII. 


IV.—For all this, A. C. goes on, and tells us “ that they,” A.C. p. 69. 


of Rome, “ cannot be proved to depart from the foundation, 
so much as Protestants 40. So, then, we have at last a 
confession here, that they may be proved to depart from the 
foundation, though not so much or so far as the Protestants 
do. I do not mean to answer this, and prove that the 
Romanists do depart as far, or farther from the foundation 
than the Protestants; for then A.C. would take me at the 
same lift, and say I granted a departure too. Briefly, there- 
fore, I have named here more instances than one, in some 
of which they have erred in the foundation, or very near it. 
But for the Church of England, let A. C. stance, if he can, 
in any one point in which she hath departed from the 


foundation. 


Now, first, here is nothing that can 
be drawn with cart-ropes to prove 
conversion by adduction; for if there 
be conversion, there must be change : 
and this is sine mutatione sui. And, 
secondly, I would fain know how a 
body that is alicubi shall be alibi, 
without change of itself; and yet that 
this shall be rather transubstantiation 
than translocation. Besides, it is a 
phrase of very sour consequence,— 
should a man squeeze it,—which Bel- 
larmine uses there, even in his Recog- 
nition, Panis transit in corpus Christi. 
{ubi supra, p. 322. note *]. 

b A scandal, and a grievous one. 
For this gross opinion was but con- 
firmed in the Council of Lateran: it 
had got some footing in the Church 
the two blind ages before. For Beren- 
garius was made recant in such terms 
as the Romanists are put to their 
shifts to excuse. Quartum argumen- 
tum [habetur ...ubi ex confessione 
Berengarii, que habetur (Corp. Jur. 
Canon. de Consecr. Dist.) 2. argumen- 
tum Petrus Martyr sumit. Nam in 
ea confessione &c.]— Bellarmin. de 
{Sacrament.] Eucharist. lib. iii. cap. 18. 
§11. [Op., tom. iii. col. 642. 1). et 
seqq.| For he says expressly : [Ego 
Berengarius .. . anathematizo omnem 
heeresim, praecipue eam... que as- 
truere conatur panem, et vinum, que in 
altari ponuntur, post consecrationem so- 
lummodo sacramentum, et non verum | 
corpus [et sanguinem Domini nostri 


Well, that A.C. will do; for he says, “The 


Jesu] Christi [esse, nec] posse sensu- 
aliter, [nisi] in [solo] sacramento 
manibus sacerdotum tractari, vel 
frangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri... 
fore et corde profiteor.. . scilicet: 
panem, et vinum, quee in altari ponun- 
tur, post consecrationem non solum 
sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus 
et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi esse, et sensualiter non solum 
in sacramento, sed in veritate manibus 
sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium 
dentibus atteri—The Gloss adds : Nisi 
sane intelligas verba Berengarii, in 
majorem incides heresim, quam ipse 
habuit: et ideo omnia referas ad spe- 
cies ipsas.|—Decret. par. iii. de Con- 
secrat. Dist. 2. cap. [xlii.] Hgo Beren- 
garius. Now this recantation was 
made about the year 1050; and the 
Council of Lateran was in the year 
1215. Between this gross recantation 
of Berengarius and that Council, the 
great learned physician and philoso- 
pher Averroes lived,and took scandal 
at the whele body of Christian religion 
for this. And thus he saith. Mundum 
peragravi, [multas adeoque omnes 
regiones circuivi, | varias sectas inveni, 
sed Christiana deteriorem, aut etiam 
tam fatuam, quam sata est Christi- 
anorum, non reperi, quia Deum suum, 
quem colunt, dentibus devorant.— 
[Claud.] Espenceei, [Doct. Paris.] de 
Eucharist. Adorat. lib. iv. cap. 3. [ Op. 
p. 1134. col. 2. ed. Paris. 1619. ] 


A.C. p. 69. 


366 


There may be infallible assurance, on Anglican grounds, 


Conrerence Protestants err against the foundation by denying infallible 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


A.C. p. 68. 


A.C. p. 69. 


authority to a General Council, for that is in effect to deny 
infallibility to the whole Catholic Church.’ No; there is a 
great deal of difference between a General Council and the 
whole body of the Church.” And when a General Council 
errs, as the second of Ephesus did, out of that great Catholic 
body another may be gathered, as was then that of Chalcedon, 
to do the truth of Christ that right which belongs unto it. 
Now, if it were all one in effect to say, A General Council 
can err, and that The whole Church can err, there were no 
remedy left against a General Council erring; which is your 
case now at Rome, and which hath thrust the Church of 
Christ into more straits than any one thing besides.t’ But 
I know where you would be. A General Council is infallible, 
if it be confirmed by the pope ; and the pope, he is infallible, 
else he could not make the Council so; and they which 
deny the Council’s infallibility deny the pope’s, which con- 
firms it. And then, indeed, the Protestants depart a mighty 
way from this great “ foundation of faith’”—the pope’s infal- 
ibility. But God be thanked, this is only from the founda- 
tion of the present Roman faith,—as A.C. and the Jesuit 
081] it,—not from any “ foundation” of the Christian faith, 
to which this infallibility was ever a stranger. 

.V.—From answering, A. C. falls to asking questions. I 
think he means to try whether he can win any thing upon 
me by the cunning way, ὦ multis interrogationibus simul, 
“by asking many things at once,’ to see if any one may 
make me slip into a confession inconvenient. And first, he 
asks “ How Protestants, admitting no infallible rule of 
faith but Scripture only, can be infallibly sure that they 
believe the same entire Scripture, and Creed, and the four 
first General Councils, and in the same uncorrupted sense in 
which the primitive Church believed?” It is just as I said. 
Here are many questions in one, and I might easily be 
caught, would I answer in gross to them all together; but I 
shall go more distinctly to work. Well, then; I admit no 
ordinary rule left now in the Church, of divine and infallible 
verity, and so of faith, but the Scripture. And I believe 


¢ Sect. xxxili. Consid. 4. No. 1. 4 Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 7. No. 4. 
[ubi supra, p. 266. ] [ubi supra, p. 285. ] 


of the truth of Scripture, the Creeds, and the first four Councils. 


the entire Scripture, first, by the tradition of the Church ; 
then, by all other credible motives, as is before expressed ;° 
and last of all, by the light which shines in the Scripture 
itself, kindled in believers by the Spirit of God. Then, I 
believe the entire Scripture infallibly, and by a divine 
infallibility am sure of my object. Then am J as sure of my 
believing, which is the act of my faith, conversant about this 
object: for no man believes, but he must needs know in 
himself whether he believes or no, and wherein and how 
far he doubts. Then I am infallibly assured of my Creed, 
the tradition of the Church inducing, and the Scripture con- 
firming it. And TI believe both Scripture and Creed, in the 
same uncorrupted sense which the primitive Church believed 
them; and am sure that I do so believe them, because I cross 
not in my belief any thing delivered by the primitive Church. 
And this, again, I am sure of, because I take the belief of the 
primitive Church, as it is expressed and delivered by the 
Councils and ancient Fathers of those times. As for the four 
Councils, if A.C. ask how I have them, that is, their true 
and entire copies? I answer, I have them from the Church- 
tradition only ; and that is assurance enough for this. And 
so I am fully as sure as A.C. is, or can make me. But if 
he ask, How I know infallibly I believe them in their “ true 
and uncorrupted sense?” then I answer, There is no man 
of knowledge, but he can understand the plain and simple 
decision expressed in the canon of the Council, where it is 
necessary to salvation. And for all other debates in the 
Council, or decisions of it in things of less moment, it is not 
necessary that I, or any man else, have infallible assurance 
of them; though I think it is possible to attain, even in 
these things, as much infallible assurance of the uncorrupted 
sense of them, as A.C. or any other Jesuits have. 

VI.—A. C. asks again, “ What text of Scripture tells, 
that Protestants now living do believe all this, or that all 
this is expressed in those particular Bibles, or in the writings 
of the Fathers and Councils, which now are in the Protes- 
tants’ hands?” Good God! Whither will not a strong bias 
carry even a learned judgment! Why, what consequence is 
there in this? The Scripture now is the only ordinary 

¢ (Sect. xvi. vide supra, pp. 70—131. ] 


367 


Srctron 


XXXVIII. 


A.C. p. 69. 


368 Belief may be sufficiently grounded on deductions from Scripture. 


Conrerence infallible rule of divine faith: Therefore the Protestants 
ee cannot believe all this before mentioned, unless a particular 
~ text of Scripture can be showed for it. Is it not made plain 
before, how we believe Scripture to be Scripture, and by 
divine and infallible faith too, and yet we can show no 
particular text for it? Beside, were a text of Scripture 
necessary, yet that is for the object and the thing which we 
are to believe, not for the act of our believing, which is 
merely from God, and in ourselves, and for which we cannot 
have any warrant from or by Scripture, more than that we 
ought to believe—but not that we in our particular do 
believe. The rest of the question is far more inconsequent: 
“Whether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are in 
Protestants’ hands?” For, first, We have the same Bibles in 
our hands, which the Romanists have in theirs; therefore, 
either we are infallibly sure of ours, or they are not infallibly 
sure of theirs. For we have the same book, and delivered wnto 
us by the same hands; and all is expressed in ours, that is 
in theirs. Nor is it of moment in this argument, that we 
account more apocryphal than they do; for I will acknow- 
ledge every “fundamental point of faith ” as proveable out 
of the canon, as we account it, as if the apocryphal were 
added unto it. Secondly, A.C. is here extremely out of 
himself, and his way ; for his question is, ‘‘ Whether all this 
be expressed in the Bibles which we have?” All this? All 
what? Why, before there is mention of the four General 
Councils; and in this question here is mention of “the 
writings of the Fathers and the Councils.” And what, will 
A.C. look that we must show a text of Scripture for all this, 
and an express one too? I thought, and do so still, it is 
enough to ground belief upon necessary consequence‘! out 
of Scripture, as well as upon express text. And this I am 
sure of, that neither I nor any man else is bound to believe 
any thing as necessary to salvation, be it found in Councils, 
or Fathers, or where you will, if it be contrary to “ express 
Scripture,” or “ necessary consequence” from it. And for 
f [Prima ratio.] Non potest ali- [Fides enim non est, nisi verbi divini 
quid certum esse certitudine fidei, auctoritate nitatur.]— Bellarmin. de 
nisi aut immediate contineatur in Justificat. lib 111. cap. 8. § 2. [Op., 


verbo Dei; aut ex verbo Dei per tom. iv. col. 963. B.] 
evidentem consequentiam deducatur : 5 [Sed nunc] nec ego Niceenum nec 


We have assurance as to the text and sense of Councils and Fathers. 


the copies of the Councils and Fathers which are in our 
hands, they are the same that are in the hands of the 
Romanists, and delivered to posterity by “tradition of the 
Church,” which is abundantly sufficient to warrant that. 
So we are as infallibly sure of this, as it is possible for any 
of you to be. Nay, are we not more sure? For we have 
used no Index Expurgatorius upon the writings of the 
Fathers," as you have done; so that posterity hereafter must 
thank us for true copies both of Councils and Fathers, and 
not you. 

VII.—But A.C. goes on, and asks still, “ Whether Pro- 
testants be infallibly sure, that they rightly understand the 
sense of all which is expressed in their books, according to 
that which was understood by the primitive Church, and the 
Fathers which were present at the four first General Coun- 


cils 2” 


over and over again. 


A. C. may ask everlastingly, if he will ask the same 
For, I pray, wherein doth this differ mendose 


from his first’ question,' save only that here Scripture is not 


named ? 


tu debes Ariminense, tanquam preeju- 
dicaturus, proferre concilium. Nec 
ego hujus auctoritate, nec tu illius 
detineris: Scripturarum auctoritati- 
bus, [non quorumque propriis, sed 
utrisque communibus testibus,] res 
cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum 
ratione concertet.—S. Augustin. con- 
tra Maximinum| Arianum, | lib. ii. cap. 
14. [Op., tom. vili. col. 704. F.J— 
Testimonia divina in fundamento po- 
nenda sunt. [His words are: De die 
ultimi judicii Dei... eum asserturi ad- 
versus impios ... tamquam in eedificii 
fundamento prius ponere testimonia 
divina debemus.|—S. Augustin. de 
Civitate Dei, lib. xx. cap. i. [Op., 
tom. vii. col. 573. A.]—[ Ap skounpUM 
dicendum, quod argumentari ex aucto- 
ritate est maxime proprium hujus 
doctrinz], eo quod principia hujus 
doctrines per revelationem habentur. 
[Et sic oportet, quod credatur auc- 
toritati eorum, quibus revelatio facta 
est.|—S. Thom. | Aquin. Summ. | par. i. 
Q[ueest.] i. A[rtic.] 8. Respons. ad 2.— 
[Ego enim fateor caritati tuse,] solis 
eis Scripturarum libris, qui jam 
canonici appellantur, didici hune 
[timorem] honorem{que] deferre, ut 
nullum eorum auctorem scribendo 
aliquid errasse firmissime credam. 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


[Ae si aliquid in eis offendero literis, 
quod videatur contrarium veritati, 
nihil aliud, quam vel mendosum esse 
codicem, vel interpretem non assecu- 
tum esse quod dictum est, vel me 
minime intellexisse, non ambigam. | 
Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet 
sanctitate doctrinaque prepolleant, 
non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita 
senserunt, vel scripserunt.—S. Augus- 
tin. [Epist. Ixxxii. ad Hieronymum, 
olim] Epist. xix. [ὃ 8. Op., tom. ii. 
col. 190. F.] 

h [Primum enim toto Christiano- 
rum orbe conquiri nefariz doctrine 
libros, et publice exuri jussisti: de- 
inde expurgari, et emaculari curasti 
omnia Catholicorum seriptorum, ac 
precipue veterum patrum  scripta, 
heereticorum zetatis nostree feecibus 
contaminata, et venenis infecta. Pos- 
tremo Catalogum, vel Indicem, edi 
mandasti auctorum, ac librorum 
omnium heeretici nominis, qui essent 
ab ecclesiastica bibliotheca arcendi, 
et ab omnibus Christianis lectoribus 
abjiciendi.] — Sixtus Senensis, in 
Hpist. | Dedicat.| ad Pium V. [preefix. 
Bibliothee. Sanct. p. 1. ed. Paris. 
1610. ] 

i Sect. xxxviii. No. 5. [vide supra, 
p. 366.] 


BB 


369 


Srorron 
XXXVIII. 





A.C. p. 69. 


MS oe 


carent 
Editt.1673, 


For there the question was of our “assurance of and 1686. ] 


370 


How we know what points are formally fundamental, 


Conrerence the incorrupted sense.” And therefore, thither I refer you 


WITH 


FIsHER. 


A.C. p. 69. 


for answer, with this, That it is not required either of us or 
of them, that there should be had an infallible assurance 
that we rightly understand the sense of all that is expressed 
in our books. And I think I may believe without sin, that 
there are many things expressed in these books, (for they are 
theirs as well as ours,) which A. C. and his fellows have not 
“infallible assurance” that they rightly understand in the 
sense of the primitive Church, or the Fathers present in 
those Councils. And if they say, Yes, they can, because 
when a difficulty crosses them, they believe them in the 
Church’s sense; yet that dry shift will not serve. For 
belief of them in the Church’s sense is an implicit faith, 
but it works nothing distinctly upon the understanding. 
For by an implicit faith, no man can be infallibly assured 
that he doth “rightly understand the sense”—which is 
A. C.’s question—whatever perhaps he may rightly believe. 
And an implicit faith, and an infallible understanding of 
the same thing under the same considerations, cannot pos- 
sibly stand together in the same man at the same time. 
VIII.—A. C. hath not done asking yet; but he would 
farther know, “ Whether Protestants can be infallibly sure 
that all and only those points, which Protestants account 
fundamental and necessary to be expressly known by all, 
were so accounted by the primitive Church?” Truly, 
“unity m the faith” is very considerable in the Church. 
And in this the Protestants agree, and as uniformly as you; 
and have as “infallible assurance ” as you can have, of all 
pots which they account fundamental; yea, and of all 
which were so accounted by the Primitive Church. And 
these are but the Creed, and some few, and those imme- 
diate, deductions from it. And Tertullian* and Ruffinus,! 
upon the very clause of the Catholic Church, to decipher it, 
make a recital only of the fundamental points of faith. And 
for the first of these, the Creed, you see what the sense of 
the Primitive Church was, by that famous and known place 
* [Regula est autem fidei, ut jam de prescript. Hereticor. cap. xiii. &e. 
hine quid defendamus profiteamur, [Op., p. 206. D. et seqq. ed. Rigalt.] 
illa scilicet qua creditur: Unum om- ' Raffin. in Symbol. [in appendie. 


nino Deum esse, nec alium preter ad Op., S. Cypriani, p. cexxiii. ed. 
mundi conditorem, Xe. |—Tertullian. Benedict.] 


and what only necessary for those who can understand them. 


of Irenzeus ;™ where, after he had recited the Creed as the 
epitome or brief of the faith, he adds, that “none of the 
governors of the Church, be they never so potent to express 
themselves, can say alia ab his, ‘other things from these ;’ 
nor none so weak in expression as to diminish this tradition. 
For since the faith is one and the same, he that can say 
much of it says no more than he ought, nor doth he 
diminish it that can say but little.’ And in this the Pro- 
testants all agree. And for the second, the “immediate 
deductions,” they are not “formally fundamental” for all 
men, but for such” as are able to make or understand them. 
And for others, it is enough if they do not obstinately or 
schismatically refuse them, after they are once revealed. 
Indeed, you account many things fundamental, which were 
never so accounted in any sense by the Primitive Church ; 
such as are all the decrees of General Councils, which 
may be all true, but can never be all ‘ fundamental in the 


faith.” For it is not in the 


m Ht neque qui valde potens est in 
dicendo ex ecclesiz preefectis alia ab 
his dicet, &c. Neque debilis in di- 
cendo hance traditionem imminuet. 
Cum enim una et eadem fides sit, 
neque is, qui multum de ea dicere 
potest, plusquam oportet, dicit, neque 
qui parum, ipsam imminuit. [καὶ 
οὔτε 6 πάνυ δυνατὸς, K.T.A.] —S. 
Irenzeus, advers. Heeres. lib. i. [cap. 3. 
ubi sup. p. 33. note °.|—Et, 5. Basil. 
Sermo de Fide, [Op.,] tom. ii. p. 195. 
ed. Basil. 1505. [φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις, 
k.T.A. ubi sup. p. 61. note 4.|— Una et 
immobilis regula, &c.—Tertullian. de 
Virg. veland. cap.i. [ubi sup. p. 34. 
note 4.] 

πα Quantum [ergo] ad prima credi- 
bilia, quee sunt articuli fidei, tenetur 
homo explicite credere, sicut et tene- 
tur habere fidem. Quantum autem 
ad alia credibilia, non tenetur [homo | 
explicite credere, [sed solum implicite, 
vel in preeparatione animi, in quan- 
tum paratus est eredere quicquid 
divina Scriptura continet: sed tune 
solum hujusmodi tenetur explicite 
credere, | quando hoc ei constiterit in 
doctrina fidei contineri.—S. Thom. 
[Aquin. Summ.] Secund. Secund. 
Ql ueest.] ii. A[rtic.] 5. in conclus— 
[Ad quartum argumentum quum ar- 
guitur, quod si sic infidelitas non foret 


power of the whole Church,° 


peccatum nec heeresis: quia assensus 
ad opposita articulorum posset causari 
in homine velit nolit per aliquod so- 
phisma. Ad istud potest dici, quod 
infidelitas est non credere quod eccle- 
sia credit, vel nolle vivere secundum 
fidem, item secundum preecepta fidei : 
unde odire fidem mores et ritum 
Christianorum est peccatum infideli- 
tatis. Non omnis autem error, in his 
quee fidei sunt, est peceatum infideli- 
tatis vel heeresis: quia posito quod 
aliquis in generali velit credere omnia 
quee Spiritus Sanctus revelavit ecclesize 
fore eredenda, et sub hac fide] credat 
errando contineri quoddam oppositum 
alicui articulo subtili, ad cujus fidem 
explicitam non omnes tenentur.— 
[Magistri Roberti] Holkot. [super 
quatuor libros Sententiarum ques- 
tiones, quedam conferentiz,] in I. 
Sentent. Q[usest.] i. Respons. ad 4. 
K. [ed. Lugd. 1497.] 

© Resolutio Occham est, quod nec 
tota ecclesia, nee concilium generale, 
nec summus pontifex potest facere 
articulum, quod non fuit articulus.— 
Almain. in IIL. Sentent. D[istinet. | 
xxv. Q[ueest.] unic. [fol. Ixxx. ubi 
supra, p. 33. note ?. | —Articulus enim 
est ex eo solo, qui a Deo revelatus est. 
—[ibid. paulo supra. | 


BB 2 


371 


SEcTION 


XXXVIIT. 


372 


The Church cannot make a Doctrine fundamental. 


Conrrrexce much less of a General Council, to make any thing “ funda- 


WITH 


FIsHER. 


mide 3. 


mental in the faith,’ that is not contained in the letter or 
sense of that “common faith, which was once given,” and 
but once for all, “to. the. saints.” But if it be A.C2s 
meaning, to call for an infallible assurance of all such points 
of faith as are decreed by General Councils, then I must 
be bold to tell him, all those decrees are not necessary to 
all men’s salvation. . Neither do the Romanists themselves 
agree in all such “determined points of faith,’ be they 
determined by Councils or by Popes. For instance: After 
those books which we account apocryphal were defined to 
be canonical,’ and an anathema pronounced in the case, 
Sixtus Senensis’ makes scruple of some of them. And 
after Pope Leo the Tenth had defined the Pope to be above 
a General Council, yet many Roman Catholics’ defend the 
contrary; and so do all the Sorbonists at this very day. 
Therefore, if these be fundamental in the faith, the Romanists 
differ one from another in the faith—nay, in the funda- 
mentals of the faith; and therefore cannot have infallible 
assurance of them. Nor is there that “unity in the faith” 
amongst them, which they so much and so often boast of. 
For “ what Scripture is canonical,” is a great point of faith. 
And I believe they will not now confess, that the pope’s 
power over a General Council is a small one. And so let 
A.C. look to his own “ infallible assurance”’ of fundamentals 
in the faith: for ours, God be thanked, is well. And since he 
is pleased to call for a “ particular text of Scripture,” to prove 


P [Si quis autem libros ipsos in- 
tegros cum omnibus suis partibus, 
prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi con- 
sueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina 
editione habentur, pro sacris et cano- 
nicis non susceperit, et traditiones 
sciens et prudens contempserit, ana- 
thema sit. — [Concil. Tridentin. 
Sess. iv. [Decretum de Canonicis 
Scripturis. | 

4[ Ex. grat.: de Lib. Esth. Appendie. 
sie seribit Sixtus Senensis : Sed venit 
hoe loco in mentem, simul admonere, 
et adhortari pium ae benevolum 
lectorem, ne me temeritatis arguat, 
quod hee septem postrema capita, a 
canonicis Seripturis avulsa, in hune 
ultimum apocryphorum ordinem rede- 
gerim, ac si oblitus sim decreti Sanctee 


Synodi Tridentine..... Est enim 
Canon ille intelligendus, de veris ac 
germanis partibus, que ad librorum 
integritatem spectant, non autem de 
laceris quibusdam appendicibus, et 
pannosis additamentis, a quovis in- 
cognito auctore temere appositis, et 
utcunque insutis, qualia sane sunt 
hujusmodi ultima capitula, &ce.] — 
Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Sanet. lib. i. 
[Sect. 3. p. 27. col. 2. D. p. 28. col. 
1A] 

* Non est necessario credendum 
determinatis per sum[{mum] pontifi- 
cem, &c.—Almain. in III. Sentent. 
D[istinet.] xxiv. Q[uest.] unica Con- 
clus. 6. Dub. 6. in fine. [Prop. 4. 
fol. Ixxvii. ] 


Laud’s Profession, and Rule, of Faith. 373 


all and every thing of this nature—which is ridiculous in Srcrroy 
itself, and unreasonable to demand, as hath been showed,s-— **XV!l- 
yet when he shall be pleased to bring forth but a particular 
known tradition, to prove all and every thing of this on 
their side, it will then be perhaps time for him to call for, 
and for us to give, farther answer about particular texts of 
Scripture. 

IX.—After all this questioning, A.C. infers: “That I A.¢.p.69. 
had need seek out some other infallible rule and means, by 
which I may know these things infallbly; or else that I 
have no reason to be so confident as to adventure my soul, 
that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant 
faith.” How weak this inference is, will easily appear by 
that which I have already said to the premises; and yet I 
have somewhat left to say to this inference also. And first : 
I have lived, and shall, God willing, die, in the faith of 
Christ, as it was professed in the ancient Primitive Church, 
and as it is’ professed in the present Church of England. '(Church, 
And for the rule which governs me herein, if I cannot be eae wae 
confident for my soul upon the Scripture, and the Primitive tee and 
Church expounding and declaring it, I will be confident 
upon no other. And, secondly, I have all the reason in the 
world to be confident upon this rule, for this can never 
deceive me: another, that very other which A. C. proposes, A.C. p.72 
namely, “the faith of the Roman Church,” may. There- 
fore, with A. C.’s leave, I will venture my salvation upon the 
rule aforesaid, and not trouble myself to seek another of 
man’s making, to the forsaking or weakening of this which 
God hath given me. For I know they “committed two Jer. ii. 13. 
evils, which forsook the fountain of living waters, to hew out 
to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no 
water.” For here is the evil of desertion of that which was 
right ; and the evil of a bad choice—of that which is hewed 
out with much pains and care, and is after useless and 
unprofitable. But then, thirdly, I find that a Romanist may 
make use of an implicit faith at his pleasure, but a Pro- \{itshould; 
testant must “know” all these things “ infallibly ;” that is else.... ” 
A.C.’s word, “know these things.” Why, but is it not enough fat eee 
to believe them? Now God forbid it should; else,’ what shall and 1686. ] 


5 Sect. xxxviii. No. 6. [vide supra, p. 367. | 


974 


How A, (5 confidence is without just warrant, 


Coyrerence become of millions of poor Christians in the world, which 


WITH 
FISHER. 





A.C. p. 69. 


A.C. p.70. 


ANC pradL- 


Ephes.iv.5. 


cannot “know” all these things, much less know them “ infal- 
libly ?”? Well, I would not have A.C. weaken the belief of 
poor Christians in this fashion. But for things that may be 
known as well as believed, nor I, nor any other, shall need 
forsake the Scripture, to seek another rule to direct either 
our conscience or our confidence. 

X.—In the next place, A. C. observes, “ that the Jesuit 
was as confident for his part, with this difference, that he 
had sufficient reason of his confidence, but I had not for 
mine.” ‘This is said with the confidence of a Jesuit, but as 
yet but said. Therefore he goes on, and tells us, “ that the 
Jesuit had reason of his confidence out of express Scriptures, 
and Fathers, and the infallible authority of the Church.” 
Now, truly, “ express scriptures ;” with A.C.’s patience, he 
hath not named one that is “ express,” nor can he. And 
the few scriptures which he hath alleged, I have an- 
swered,* and sohave others. As for “ Fathers,” he has named 
very few, and with what success, I leave to the reader’s 
judgment. And for the “ authority of the Catholic Church,” 
I hold it" as “ infallible” as he, and upon better grounds; 
but not so of a General Council, which he here means, as 
appears after. And, for my part, I must yet think, and I 
doubt A. C. will not be able to disprove it, that “ express Scrip- 
ture,” and “ Fathers,” and the “ authority of the Church,” 
will rather be found proofs to warrant my confidence than 
his. Yea, but A.C. saith, “that I did not then tax the 
Jesuit with any rashness.”? It may be so; nor did he me: 
so there we parted even. Yea, but he saith again, that 
I “ acknowledge there is but one saving faith, and that 
the Lady might be saved in the Roman faith, which was all 
the Jesuit took upon his soul.” Why, but if this be all, 
I will confess it again. The first, That there is but one 
faith, I confess with S. Paul. And the other, That the 
Lady might be saved in the Roman faith, or Church, 
I confess with that charity which S. Paul teacheth me— 


t Sect. xxv. No. 5. [vide supra, p. ἃ Sect. xxi. No. 5. [vide supra, 
179.] Sect. xxxiii. Consid. 111. Νο. 1. p. 155.] 
[ vide supra, p. 254. ] x Sect. xxxv. No. 1. [vide supra, p. 


314.] 


R.C. Doctrines not being grounded as he professes. 375 


namely, to leave all men, especially the weaker both sex  Sxrorron 
and sort, which hold the foundation, to “stand or fall to pcs τος 
their own Master.” And this is no “ mistaken charity.” As Rom.xiv.4. 
for the inference which you would draw out of it, that is 
answered at large already.’ But then A.C. adds, “ that A.C. p.70. 
I say, but without any proof, that the Romanists have many 
dangerous errors, but that I neither tell them which they be, 

nor why I think them dangerous, but that I leave them to 

look to their own souls ; which,” he says, “they do, and have 

no cause to doubt.” How much the Jesuit and A. C. have said 

in this Conference without any solid proof, I again submit to 
judgment, as also what proofs I have made. If in this very 

place I have added none, it is because I had made proof 

enough of the selfsame thing before;* where, lest he 

should want and call for proof again, I have plainly laid 
together some of the many “dangerous errors”? which are 

charged upon them. So I tell you which, at least some of 

which, they be; and their very naming will show their 

danger. Andif I did remit you to look to your own souls, 

I hope there was no offence in that, if you do it, and do it 

so that you have no cause to doubt. And the reason why 

you doubt not, A. C. tells us, is, “ because you had no new A.C. p. 70. 
device of your own, or any other men’s, nor anything contrary 

to Scripture, but all most conformable to Scriptures inter- 

preted by unanime* consent of Fathers, and definitions of 
Councils.” Indeed, if this were true, you had little cause to 

doubt in point of yourbelief. But the truth is, you do hold new 

devices of your own, which the Primitive Church was never 
acquainted with; and some of those, so far from being 
conformable, as that they are little less than contradictory, 

to Scripture; in which particulars, and divers others, the 
Scriptures are not interpreted by “ unanime consent of 
Fathers,” or “ definitions of Councils,”’—unless, perhaps, by 

some late Councils, packed of purpose to do that ill service. 

I have given instances enough before,” yet some you shall 


y Sect. xxxv. No. 2. [vide supra, 
p. 317.] 


sent of Fathers,” ὅσο, but in the table 
of errata A. C. had corrected the 


2 Sect. xxxiii. [Consid. vii.] No. 
12. [vide supra, p. 304.] Sect. xxxv. 
No. 7. [vide supra, p. 337. | 

5. (In the text of all the three Edi- 
tions, these words as cited, and cor- 
rectly, by Laud, are “ by union, con- 


phrase as given in the present text, 
** unanime consent,” &c. } 

> Sect. xxxiii. [Consid. vii.] No. 
12. [vide supra, p. 304.] Sect. xxxv. 
No. 7. [vide supra, p. 337.] 


376 


Instances of Roman Doctrine not grounded on Scripture, 


Conrerence haye here, lest you should say again that I affirm without 


WITH 
F 
ISHER. 


proof or instance.° 


I pray, then, whose device was Tran- 


substantiation’—and whose, Communion under One Kind— 
and whose, deposition and unthroning, nay killing, of 


princes,® and the like—if they were not yours ? 


© Cone. Lateran. [1V.] Can. i. [ubi 
supra, p. 306. note °. 

4 Cone. Constant. Sess. xiii. [ubi 
supra, p. 290. note ".] 

ὁ [Ad hee, regnum defertur primo- 
genito, et in alia primogenita suc- 
ceditur eodem ordine ac jure, quo in 
ipsum regnum: sed] propter heere- 
sim [regis,] non solum rex regno 
privatur, sed et ejus filii a regni suc- 
cessione pelluntur: [ut noster Lupus 
(de jure nature, part v. ὃ 7.) lucu- 
lenter probat : ergo primogenita 
pari ratione confiscari possunt. |— 
[ Jacobi] Simancz, [ Pacensis Episcopi], 
de Catholicis Institutionibus [lib. ] 
tit. ix. [de bonis heereticorum, | § 259. 
[p. 77. ed. Romee, 1575. ]—[ Item ] ab- 
soluti sunt a debito fidelitatis, [do- 
minii et omnis obsequii, quicunque 
lapsis manifeste in heresim, aliquo 
pacto, quacunque firmitate vallato, 
tenebantur astricti: quemadmodum 
Gregorius IX. constituit. Unde re- 
linquitur, quod is apud quem heere- 
ticus quippiam deposuerit, non tene- 
bitur post manifestam heeresim depo- 
sitam rem illi reddere, sed fisco 
petenti. Preeterea, | custodes arcium, 
[et quicunque vasalli eadem consti- 
tutione liberati sunt a vinculo sacra- 
menti, quo dominis fidelitatem pro- 
miserant. ]|—Id. tit. xlvi. [de poenis,] ὃ 
73. [p. 371.|—It was stiffly avowed not 
long since by , That no man 
could show any one Roman Catholic 
of note and learning that affirmed it 
lawful to kill kings upon any pretext 
whatsoever. Now surely he that says, 
as Romanists do, that it is lawful to 
depose a king, says upon the matter 
it is lawful to kill him ; for kings do 
not use to be long-lived after their 
deposition; and they seldom stay till 
grief breaks their hearts; they have 
assassinates ready to make shorter 
work. But since he is so confident, 
I will give him an author of note, and 
very learned, that speaks it out: 
[ Queeret aliquis, an Joab peceavit exe- 
quendo id, quod mandavit David, 
(i.e. trucidando Uriam.) Respondent 
Hebrvei, dicentes, quod non peccavit, 
et ad hoc dant regulam, quod quando- 
cunque precipitur alicui malum facere 


For I dare 


a persona privata, quod faciens peccat, 
et non jubens: si autem rex alicui 
jubeat male facere, non peccat faciens 
sed ipse rex: sic autem fuit de Joab 
. ... Secunda pars est etiam falsa, nam 
dato quod rex aliquid jubeat, si mani- 
feste est iniquum, nullus tenetur ei 
obedire; ut] si juberet colere idola, 
vel deserere legem Dei: [certum est 
enim quod non erat sibi obediendum ; 
immo ipse| rex deberet occidi, si ad 
talia solicitaret populum,—'Tostatus, 
in 2 Sam. [2 Reg.] xi. Quest. 17. 
[Op., tom. vi. par. 3. p. 109. D. ed. 
Col. Agrip. 1613.] And he makes 
bold with Scripture to prove it. Deut. 
xiii. [9.] And Emmanuel Sa, in 
his Aphorisms, (verb. Tyrannus,) yet 
he is so moderate, that he would not 
have this done till he be sentenced : 
but then, Quisquis potest fieri exe- 
cutor. [His words are: Tyrannice 
gubernans juste acquisitum dominium, 
non potest spoliari sine publico judi- 
cio: lata vero sententia, potest quis- 
que fieri executor: potest autem de- 
poni a populo, etiam qui juravit ei 
obedientiam perpetuam, si monitus 
non vult corrigi. At occupantem 
tyrannice potestatem, quisque de 
populo potest occidere, si aliud non 
sit remedium ; est enim publicus 
hostis.—A phorismi Confessariorum ex 
doctorum sententiis collecti: autore 
Emanuele Sa, Lusitano, &c. p. 611, 
ed. Colon. 1615: et p. 308. ed. 
Antverp. 1599.] Mariana is far worse: 
for he says it is lawful to kill him, 
postquam a paucis seditiosis sed 
doctis cceperit tyrannus appellari. 
— [Joannis] Mariane, [His pani, | 
de Rege et Regis  Institutione 
{libri iii. ad Philippum III. His- 
panies regem, &c.] Lib. i. cap. 6. 
[p. 60. ed. (secund.) Francof. (?) 1611. 
His words are: Equidem in eo con- 
sentire tum philosophos tum theo- 
logos video, cum principem qui vi et 
armis rempublicam occupavit, nullo 
preeterea jure, nullo publico civium 
consensu, perimi a quocunque vita et 
principatu spoliari posse: cum hostis 
publicus sit .... (p. 58.) Ita facti 
queestio in controversia est, quis 
merito tyrannus habeatur: juris in 


Consent of Fathers, or early Councils. 


say, and am able to prove, there is none of these but are 


rather contrary, than conformable, to Scripture. 


Neither is 


A.C., or any Jesuit, able to show any Scripture, inter- 
preted by “unanime! consent of Fathers of the Primitive 


IIo 


Church,’ 


to prove any of these; nor any “ definition of 


ancient Councils,” but only Lateran for Transubstantiation,» 
- and that of Constance for the Eucharist in One Kind -ἶ which 
two are modern at least, far downward from the Primitive 


aperto, fas fore tyrannum perimere. 
Neque est periculum ut multi eo 
exemplo in principum vitam seeviant, 
quasi tyranni sint ; neque enim id in 
cujusquam privati arbitrio ponimus ; 
non in multorum, nisi publica vox 
populi adsit, viri eruditi ac graves in 
consilium adhibeantur ..,.. Et tamen 
salutaris cogitatio, ut sit principibus 
persuasum, si rempublicam oppres- 
serint, si vitils et foeditate intolerandi 
erant, ea conditione vivere, ut non 
jure tantum, sed cum laude et gloria 
perimi possint.] Yea, but Mariana 
was disclaimed for this by the Jesuits. 
(Cf. Antimariana: ou, Refutation des 
Propositions de Mariana, &c. par M. 
Roussel: (this work contains the de- 
cree of the Sorbonne against Mariana,) 
ἃ Paris, 1610.] Yea, but for all that, 
there was an Apology printed in Italy, 
an. 1610. permissu superiorum. And 
there it is said, They were all enemies 
of the holy name of Jesus, that con- 
demned Mariana for any such doc- 
trine. ΑΒ for Tostatus, no sentence 
hath touched upon him at all for it. 

f [Quoniam verba sacrve scripture 
exponuntur dupliciter, vel proprie, vel 
metaphorice, primus error circa hoe, 
Hoe est corpus meum, fuit interpre- 
tantium hee Domini verba meta- 
phorice, quem Magister Sentent. in 
dist. ix. lib. 4. tractat, qui et in hoe 
articulo reprobatur. Et consistit vis 
reprobationis in hoe, quod verba Do- 
mini intellecta sunt ab ecclesia pro- 
prie, et propterea oportet illa veri- 
ficari proprie. Habemus igitur ex 
yeritate verborum Domini in sensu 
proprio, | corpus Christi veraciter esse 
in eucharistia, [et hoc est primum, 
quod] ex evangelio habemus [circa 
hoe sacramentum, <Alterum autem, | 
quod evangelium non explieayit ex- 
presse, ab ecclesia accepimus, scilicet 
conversionem panis in corpus Christi. 
{ Hane enim non solum a priscis doc- 


toribus ecclesiz habemus, quos habes, 
de consecr. Dist. 11. copiose, et a Ma- 
gistro Sentent. in tract. de euch. dif- 
fuse ; sed a Cone. Lateranensi sub 
Innocent III. ut patet extrav. de 
Summa Trin. et fid. cath. firmiter cre- 
dimus. |—Cajetan.in 8S. Thom. [Aquin. 
Summ. par. | 111, Queest. Ixxv. artic. 1. 
[tom. viii. p. 360. ed. Rome, 1773. 
Cajetan thus concludes: Unde con- 
venientius cum Aug. et Greg. recitatis 
a Mag. Sentent. dicimus, ex corpore 
Christi et accidentibus panis constare 
unum sacramentum, non precise, 
sicut ex signo et signato, sed quodam 
ineffabili modo, qui a sacro concilio 
Lateranensi vocatus est ex continente, 
et contento. quo etiam nomine appel- 
lavit eum Magist. Sent. quem modum 
auctor in hac litera in responsione ad 
argumenta appellavit spiritualem, et 
modum proprium huic sacramento. | 

& [Inter omnes res, de quibus dis- 
putamus, nulla est quam (de indul- 
gentiis Joquitur) minus aperte sacre 
literee prodiderint, et de qua minus 
vetusti scriptores dixerint. Neque 
tamen hac ocecasione sunt contem- 
nendze (sc. indulgentize) quod earum 
usus in ecclesia videatur sero re- 
ceptus: quoniam multa sunt posteri- 
oribus nota, quee vetusti illi scriptores 
prorsusignoraverunt. Nam] de tran- 
substantiatione panis in corpus Christi 
rara est in antiquis  scriptoribus 
mentio, [de processione Spiritus 
Sancti a Filio multo rarior, de pur- 
gatorio fere nulla, potissimum apud 
Greecos scriptores, qua de causa usque 
in hodiernum diem purgatorium non 
est_ a Greecis creditum. ]|—AIphonsus 
a Castro, [Minorita,] advers. Heeres. 
lib. viii. (verb. Indulgentiz,) [fol. 
exlii. v. E. ed. Colon. 1539.] 

h Cone. Lateran. Can. i. [ubi supra, 
p. 306. note “.]} 

i Cone. Constant. Sess. xiii. [ubi 
supra, p. 290. note”. ] 


3 


= 


4 


Srcrron 
XXXVIIT 


7 


A.C. p. 70, 


378 


What is meant by “ the Catholic Faith,” and the 


Coxrerence Church; and have done more mischief to the Church by 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


AS Cop. 10 


rom. 1. 8. 


those their determinations, than will be cured, I fear, in 
many generations. So, whatever A. C. thinks, yet I had 
reason enough to leave the Jesuit to look to his own soul. 
XI.—But A. C. having, as it seems, little new matter, is 
at the same again, aud over and over it must go: “ That 
there is but one saving faith; that this one faith was once 
the Roman; and that I granted one might be saved in the 
Roman faith.” To all which I have abundantly answered 
before. Marry, then he infers, “That he sees not how we 
can have our souls saved, without we entirely hold this faith, 
bemg the Catholic faith, which, S. Athanasius saith, ‘ unless 
a man hold entirely, he cannot be saved.’ ”’? Now here again 
is more in the conclusion than in the premises; and so the 
inference fails. For say there was a time in which the 
Catholic and the Roman faith were one—and such a time 
there was, when the Roman faith was catholic, and famous 
through the world—yet it does not follow, since the Council 
of Trent hath added a new Creed,! that this Roman faith is 
now the Catholic ; for it hath added extranea, “things without 
the foundation,” disputable, if not false, conclusions to the 
faith. So that now a man may believe the whole and entire 
Catholic faith, even as S. Athanasius requires, and yet justly 
refuse for dross a great part of that which is now the Roman 
faith.= And Athanasius himself, as if he meant to arm the 
Catholic faith against all corrupting additions, hath in the 
beginning of his Creed” these words: “ This is the Catholic 
faith,’ this and no other: this, and no other, then, here 
follows. And again at the end of his Creed, “ This is the 


k Sect. xxxy. No. 1. and Sect. tinebat, auctoritate summi pontificis 


xxxviii. No. 10. [vide supra, p. 314, 
and p. 374.] 

1 Concil. Trident. Bulla Pii IV. 
super forma juramenti professionis 
fidei, ad finem Concil. Trident. 

m And this is so much the more 
remarkable, ifit be true which Thomas 
hath: [Ap Tert1vm dicendum, quod } 
Athanasius non composuit manifesta- 
tionem fidei per modum Symboli, sed 
[magis] per modum [cujusdam } doc- 
trine, [ut ex ipso modo loquendi 
apparet. Sed quia integram fidei 
veritatem ejus doctrina breviter con- 


est recepta, ut quasi regula fidei 
habeatur.—S. Thom. [Aquin. Summ. ] 
Secund. Secund. Q[uzest.] 1. A[rtic. ] 
10. Respons. ad 3.—[Huie autem ] 
symbolo Apostolorum addita sunt duo 
alia ; scilicet Symbolum Niczni Con- 
cilii et Symbolum Athanasii, ad ma- 
jorem fidei explanationem, [et heere- 
sum confutationem. Athanasii ordi- 
natum contra errorem Arrii.]—[Gab.] 
Biel. in III. Sentent. D{istinet.] 
“eye Q{ueest.] unic. A[rtic.] 1. [Not. 
17. 


πα §. Athanas. in Symbol. 


“holding it whole and undefiled,” in Creed of S. Athanasius. 379 


ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ 
ΧΧΧΥΠΙ. 


Catholic faith ;” ° this, and no more? than! is here delivered, 
(always presupposing the Apostles’ Creed as Athanasius did,) 
and this is the largest of all Creeds. So that if A. C. would 
wipe his eyes from the mist which rises about Tiber, he 
might see how our souls may be saved, believing the Catholic 
faith, and that entire, without the addition of Roman leaven. 
But if he cannot, or, I doubt, will not see it, it is enough 
that, by God’s grace, we see it: and therefore once more 
I leave him and his to look to their own souls. 

XII.—After this, A.C. is busy in unfolding the meaning 
of this great Father of the Church, 8. Athanasius. And he 
tells us, “that he says in his Creed, that ‘without doubt 
every man shall perish that holds not the Catholic faith 
entire,’ (that is,” saith A.C. “in every point of it,) ‘and in- 
violate,’ (that is, in the right sense, and for the true formal 
reason of Divine revelation, sufficiently applied to our under- 
standing by the infallible authority of the Catholic Church 
proposing to us by her pastors this revelation).’? Well, we 
shall not differ much from A. C. in expounding the meaning 
of S. Athanasius ; yet some few things I shall here observe. 
And, first, I agree, that he which hopes for salvation, must 
believe the Catholic faith whole and entire in every point. 
Next, I agree, that he must likewise hold it inviolate, if to 
believe it in the right sense be to hold it inviolate. But, by 
A.C.’s leave, the believing of the Creed in the right sense is 
comprehended in the first branch—“ the keeping of it whole 
and entire.” For no man can properly be said to believe the 
whole Creed, that believes not the whole sense as well as the 
letter of it, and as entirely. But, thirdly, for the word “in- 
violate,” it is, indeed, used by him that translated Athanasius ; 
but the Father’s own words are: “ that he that will be saved 
must keep the faith ὑγω) καὶ ἄμωμον. Now ὑγιὴς is the 
“sound and entire” faith. And it cannot be a sound faith, 
unless the sense be as whole and entire as the letter of the 
Creed. And ἄμωμος is compounded of the privative particle a, 
and μῶμος, which is, “reproach” or “infamy : so that ἄμωμος 





ΣΉ ΣῈ 
male Kdit. 
1639.] 


A.C. p. 70. 


° And yet the Council of Trent 
having added twelve new articles, 
says thus of them also: Heee est vera 
Catholica fides, extra quam nemo 
salvus esse potest, &c.—Bulla Pii IV. 
super forma juramenti professionis 


fidei, in fine Concil. Trident. 

P Integram fidei veritatem ejus 
doctrina breviter continet.—S. Thom. 
[Aquin. Summ.] Secund. Secund. 
Q[ueest.] 1. Afrtic.] 10. [Respons. | 
ad 3. [Ὁ] supra, note ™. 


380 


The true sense of the words bys and ἄμωμος shown, 


Corrrrence Signifies the holding of the entire faith in such holiness of 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


life and conversation, as is “ without all infamy and reproach.” 
That is, as our English renders that Creed exceeding well: 
“ Which faith unless a man do keep whole and undefiled,” 4 
even with such a life as Momus himself shall not be able to 
carp at. So Athanasius,—who certainly was passing able 
to express himself in his own language,—in the beginning 
of that his Creed requires, that we keep it “entire,” without 
diminution : and “ undefiled,’ without blame: and at the 
end, that we believe it “ faithfully,” without wavering. But 
“inviolate” is the mistaken word of the old interpreter, and 
with no great knowledge made use of by A.C. And then, 
fourthly, though this be true divinity, That he which hopes 
for salvation must believe the whole Creed—and in the right 
sense, too, if he be able to comprehend it,—yet I take the 
true and first meaning of “ inviolate,”—could Athanasius’s 
word ἄμωμος have signified so,—not to be the holding of the 
true sense, but not to offer violence, or a forced sense or 
meaning, upon the Creed, which every man doth not that yet 
believes it not in a true sense; for, not to believe the true 
sense of the Creed is one thing, but it is quite another to 
force a wrong sense upon it. Fifthly: a reason would be 
given also why A. C. is so earnest for “ the whole faith,” and 
balks the word which goes with it, which is “holy or unde- 
filed ;”” for Athanasius doth alike exclude from salvation those 
which keep not the Catholic faith “holy,” as well as these 
which keep it not “whole.” I doubt this was to spare many 
of his “ holy fathers, the popes,” * who were as far as any— 
the very lewdest among men without exception—from keep- 
ing the Catholic faith holy. Sixthly: I agree to the next 
part of his exposition, “That a man that will be saved must 
believe the whole Creed for the true formal reason of Divine 
revelation ;” for upon the truth of God, thus revealed by 
Himself, hes the “infallible certainty” of the Christian 
faith. But I do not grant that this is within the compass 
of 8. Athanasius’s word ἄμωμος, nor of the word “ inviolate ;” 


4 Sic Ecclesia dicitur ἄμωμος, Eph. 
v. 27; et in veteri Glossario, ἄμωμος, 
immaculatus.—{Four Greek versions 
—or forms—of the Athanasian Creed 
are preserved in the Benedictine 
edition of ὃ. Athan. Op., tom. ii. 
pp. 728—731. The respective readings 


of this clause, are, (1.) ἣν εἰ μή τις 
ὑγιῆ καὶ ἄμωμον. (2.) ἀκεραίον καὶ 
ἀπαράθραυστον" (3.) σῶον καὶ ἀμώμητον" 
(4.) ἀμόλυντον καὶ ἄφθορον 

τ Sect. xxxiii. [Consid. vii.] No. 7. 
[ vide supra, p. 293.] 


The E.C. receives the whole faith, and that upon the true grounds. 381 


but in that respect it is a mere strain of A.C. And then, Sxcrrox 
lastly, though the whole Catholic Church be sufficient in ΧΧΧΥΗΙ. 
applying this to us and our belief, not our understanding, 
which A.C. is at again, yet “infallible” she is not, in the A.C. p.70 
proposal of this revelation to us by every of her pastors ; some 
whereof amongst you, as well as others, neglect, or forget at 
least, to feed Christ’s sheep as Christ and His Church hath 
fed them. 
XIII.—But now that A.C. hath taught us, as you see, A.C. p. 70. 
the meaning of S. Athanasius, in the next place he tells us, 
“That if we did believe any one article, we, finding the 
same formal reason in all, and applied sufficiently by the 
same means to all, would easily believe all.’ Why, surely, 
we do not believe any one article only, but all the articles 
of the Christian faith; and we believe them for the same 
formal reason in all—namely, Because they are revealed 
from and by God, and sufficiently applied in His word, and 
by His Church’s ministration. “But so long as they do 
not believe all in this sort,” saith A.C. Look you; he tells A.C. p. 70. 
us we do not believe all, when we profess we do. Is this 
man become as God, that he can better tell what we believe 
than we ourselves? Surely we do believe all, and in that 
sort too; though, I believe, were S. Athanasius himself alive 
again, and a plain man should come to him and tell him he 
believed his Creed in all and every particular, he would 
admit him for a good Catholic Christian, though he were not 
able to express to him the formal reason of that his belief. 
“ Yea, but,” saith A. C., “ while they will, as all heretics do, A.C. p.70. 
make choice of what they will, and what they will not, believe, 
without relying upon the infallible authority of the Catholic 
Church, they cannot have that one saving faith in any one 
article.” Why, but whatsoever heretics do, we are not 
such, nor do we so; for they which believe all the articles— 
as once again I tell you we do—make no choice; and we do 
rely upon the infallible authority of the word of God, and 
the whole Catholic Church; and therefore we both can 
have, and have, that “ one saving faith” which believes all the 
articles entirely, though we cannot believe that any parti- 
cular Church is infallible. 
XIV.—And yet, again, A.C. will not thus be satisfied, A.C. p. 71. 


382 


The E.C. does not rest upon human deductions or authority. 


Correrxencr but on he goes, and adds: “That although we believe the 


WITH 
Fisner. 


ἌΣ ΟΣ eal 


same truth which other good Catholics do in some articles, 
yet not believing them for the same formal reason of Divine 
revelation, sufficiently applied by infallible Church authority, 
ἕο. we cannot be said to have one and the same infallible 
and Divine faith which other good Catholic Christians have, 
who believe the articles for this formal reason, sufficiently 
made known to them, not by their own fancy, nor the 
fallible authority of human deductions, but by the infallible 
authority of the Church of God.” If A.C. will still say the 
same thing, I must still give the same answer. First, he 
confesses we believe the same truth in “some articles,’— 
I pray, mark his phrase,—the same truth in some articles 
with “other good Catholic Christians.” So far his pen hath 
told truth against his will: for he doth not, I wot well, 
imtend to call us Catholics, and yet his pen, being truer than 
himself, hath let it fall; for the word “other” cannot be so 
used as here it is, but that we, as well as they, must be good 
Catholics: for he that shall say the old Romans were 
valiant as well as other men, supposes the Romans to 
be valiant men; and he that shall say the Protestants 
believe some articles as well as “other good Catholics,” 
must, in propriety of speech, suppose them to be good 
Catholics. Secondly : as we do believe those “some articles,” 
so do we believe them, and all other articles of faith, “ for the 
same formal reason, and so applied,’ as but just before I 
have expressed. Nor do we believe any one article of 
faith by our own “ fancy,” or by “ fallible authority ” of 
human deductions; but, next to the infallible authority of 
God’s word, we are guided by His Church. But then A. C, 
steps into a conclusion whither we cannot follow him; for 
he says, “ that the articles to be believed must be sufficiently 
made known unto us by the infallible authority of the 
Church of God—that is, of men infallibly assisted by the 
Spirit of God, as all lawfully called, continued, and confirmed 
General Councils are assisted.” That the whole Church of 
God is infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God,* so that it 
cannot by any error fall away totally from Christ the foun- 


5. Sect. xxxviil. No, 18. [vide supra, t Sect. xxi. No. 5. [vide supra p. 
p. 381.] 155.] 


σι 


The authority of Councils ; viewed a parte ante and a parte post. 


dation, I make no doubt; for if it could, ‘ the gates of hell” 
had “ prevailed against it:” which, our Saviour assures me, 
they shall never be able to do. But that all General 
Councils, be they never so “ lawfully called, continued, and 
confirmed,” have “ infallible assistance,” I utterly deny. It is 
true that a General Council de post facto, “ after it is ended,” 
and admitted by the whole Church, is then infallible ; for it 
cannot err in that which it hath already clearly and truly 
determined without error. But that a General Council, 
a parte ante, when it first sits down and continues to 
deliberate, may truly be said to be infallible in all its after- 
determinations, whatsoever they shall be, I utterly deny. 
And it may be it was not without cunning that A.C. 
shuffled these words together—-“ called,” “ continued,” and 
“ confirmed ;” for, be it never so lawfully “called” and “con- 
tinued,” it may err. But after it is “confirmed,” that is, 
admitted by the whole Church, then, being found true, it is 
also infallible; that is, it deceives no man. For so all truth 
is, and is to us, when it is once known to be truth; but then 
many times that truth, which being known is necessary and 
infallible, was before both contingent and fallible in the way 
of proving it, and tous. And so here, a General Council 
is a most probable, but yet a fallible, way of inducing truth, 
though the truth once induced may be, after it is found, 
necessary and infallible. And so likewise the very Council 
itself, for that particular in which it hath concluded truth. 
But A.C. must both speak and mean of a Council set down 
to deliberate, or else he says nothing. 


383 


SroTIon 
XXXVIII. 


Matt. xvi. 
18. 


XV.—Now hence A.C. gathers, “That though every thing A.C. p.71. 


defined to be a Divine truth, in General Councils, is not 
absolutely necessary to be expressly known and _ actually 
believed,” as some other truths are, “ by all sorts : yet no man 
may,” after knowledge that they are thus defined, “doubt 
deliberately, much less obstinately deny the truth of any 
thing so defined.” Well, in this collection of A. C., first, 
we have this granted, That every thing defined in General 
Councils is not absolutely necessary to be expressly known 
and actually believed by all sorts of men. And this no 
Protestant, that I know, denies. Secondly, it is affirmed, 
that, after knowledge that these truths are thus defined, 


984. 


Conrrrencr nO man may “ doubt deliberately,’ 


WITH 


FIsHeEr. 


Under what limits we may question the decisions of Councils. 


> much less “ obstinately 


deny” any of them. Truly, “obstinately,” as the word is 
now in common use, carries a fault along with it. And it 
ought to be far from the temper of a Christian to be “ obsti- 
nate” against the definitions of a General Council. But that 
he may not upon very probable grounds, in an humble 
and peaceable manner, “ deliberately doubt,” yea, and upon 
demonstrative grounds, “constantly deny,’ even “ such 
definitions,” yet submitting himself and his grounds to the 
Church in that or another Council, is that which was never 
till now imposed upen believers. For it is one thing for 
a man deliberately to doubt, and modestly to propose his 
doubt for satisfaction, which was ever lawful, and is many 
times necessary; and quite another thing for a man, upon 
the pride of his own judgment, to refuse external obedience 
to the Council," which to do was never lawful, nor can ever 
stand with any government: for there is all the reason in 
the world the Council should be heard for itself, as well as 
any such recusant whatsoever, and that before a judge as 
good as itself at least. And to what end did 8S. Augustine 
say, “that one General Council might be amended by 
another, the former by the later,’* if men might neither 
“ deny,’ nor so much as “ deliberately doubt ” of, any of these 
truths defined in a General Council? And A. C. should 
have done well to have named but one ancient Father of the 
Primitive Church that ever affirmed this. For the assistance 
which God gives to the whole Church in general,’ is but in 
things simply necessary to eternal salvation; therefore more 
than this cannot be given to a General Council, no, nor so 
much. But then, if a General Council shall forget itself, 
and take upon it to define things not absolutely necessary to 
be expressly known or actually believed, (which are the things 
which A.C. here speaks of,) m these, as neither General 
Council nor the whole Church have infallible assistance, so 
have Christians liberty, modestly and peaceably, and upon just 
grounds, both deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny 
such the Council’s definitions. For imstance: the Council 


“ Sect. xxxii. No.5. [vide supra, de Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. ii. cap. 3. 
p. 250.] [ubi supra, p. 267. note "7 

x Tpsaque plenaria, seepe priora a Υ Sect. xxi. No. 5. [vide supra, 
posterioribus emendari.—S. Augustin. — p. 155.] 


The Roman doctrine of Purgatory not Apostolic. 


of Florence first defined purgatory to be believed as a divine 
truth, and matter of faith—if that Council had “ consent ” 
enough so to define it.” This was afterwards deliberately 
doubted of by the Protestants; after this, as constantly 
denied; then confirmed by the Council of Trent,* and an 
anathéma set upon the head of every man that denies it : 
and yet scarce any Father within the first three hundred 
years ever thought of it. 

XVI.—I know Bellarmine affirms it boldly, “ That all the 
Fathers, both Greek and Latin, did constantly teach pur- 
gatory, from the very Apostles’ times.””® And where he brings 
his proofs out ef the Fathers for this point, he divides them 
into two ranks. In the first, he reckons them which affirm 
prayer for the dead—as if that must necessarily infer purga- 
tory.° Whereas, most certain it is that the ancients had, 
and gave, other reasons of prayer for the dead than freeing 
them out of any purgatory. And this is very learnedly and 
at large set down by the now learned Primate of Armagh.‘ 
But then, in the second, he says, there are “ most manifest 
places in the Fathers, in which they affirm purgatory.” ὁ And 


7 I know the Greeks subscribed 
that Council. [Szepius de purgatorio 
dubitatum est ;] et illi Graeca Ecclesia 
in Concilio Florentino diu restitit.— 
Pet. Martyr. Loc. Commun. Class. iii. 
cap. ix. ὃ 13. [p. 437. col. 2. B. ed. Ge- 
nev. 1624.|—Et in ultima sessione 
istius Concilii Greeci dixerunt, se, sine 
auctoritate totius Ecclesiz Orientalis, 
queestionem aliam tractare non posse, 
preeter illam de processione Sp. Sancti. 
Postea vero, consentiente imperatore, 
tractarunt de aliis, &¢ —Florent. Con- 
cil. sess. ult. apud Nicolinum, tom. iv. 
p. 894, &e. [χρὴ τελειῶσαι καὶ τὰ ἕπό- 
μενα... τὸ τῆς καθαρτηρίου . . : ἀπεκρί- 
θησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς" (se. Greeci) Ἡμεῖς 
ἄδειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς 
συνόδου ἀποκριθῆναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἰδίως ἀφ᾽ ἑαυ- 
τῶν ἀπολογούμεθα, K.T. A.A—Concil. Flo- 
rentin. in Sess. xxv. apud Concil. 
tom. xiii. col. 496. E.] This savours 
of some art to bring in the Greeks. 
Howsoever this shows enough against 
Bellarmine, that all the Greeks did 
not constantly teach purgatory, as he 
affirms: de Sree are lib. i. cap. 15. 
ὃ 14. [vide infra, note > 

“Cone. Trid. Sess. xxv. et in Bulla 
Pii LV. super forma Juramenti Profes- 
sionis Fidei. 

VOL, 11.—LAUD. 


b De tertio modo, [perspicuum est 
ex eo, quod non invenimus initium 
hujus dogmatis, sed] omnes veteres 
Greeci et Latini ab ipso tempore A po- 
stolorum constanter docuerunt purga- 
torium esse.—Bellarmin. de Purga- 
torio, lib. i. cap. 15. § 14. [Op., tom. ii. 
col. 625. C.] 

¢ [Primus ex patribus, Clemens, lib. 
viii. Constitut. cap. 47. longam ora- 
tionem describit pro defunctis fieri 
solitam.|—Bellarmin. de Purgator. 
lib. i. cap. 10. §1. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
604. B.] 

4 τὸ Our Romanists indeed do com- 
monly take it for granted, that ‘ Pur- 
gatory and Prayer for the Dead be so 
closely linked together, that the one 
doth necessarily follow the other’: but 
in so doing, they reckon without their 
host, and greatly mistake the matter 

. . they shall never be able to show, 
that the commemoration and prayers 
for the dead, used by the ancient 
Church, had any relation unto their 
purgatory,” &c.—Jacob. Ussher, Arma- 
chan. [ Archiepis.] in his Answer to a 
Challenge made by a Jesuit, [W. Ma- 
lone, | chap. vii. p. 194. [ Works, vol. iii. 
p. 198. ed. 1847.] 

© [Deinde] sunt apertissima loca in 


CC 


385 


SEcTION 
XXXVIIT. 


386 


The early Fathers neither uniform, 


Conrrrence he names there no fewer than two-and-twenty of the Fathers. 
A great jury, certainly, did they give their verdict with him. 
But, first, within the three hundred years after Christ, he 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


names none but Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen. 


And 


Tertullian speaks expressly of hell, not of purgatory ;' 8. Cy- 
prian, of a purging to amendment, which cannot be after this 
life. As for Origen, he, I think indeed, was the first founder 
of purgatory, but of such an one as I believe Bellarmine 
dares not affirm; for he “thought there was no punishment 
after this life but purgatory; and that not only the most 
impious men, but even the devils themselves, should be saved 
after they had suffered and been purged enough ;”" which is 


patribus, ubi asserunt purgatorium.— 
Bellarmin. de Purgat. lib. i. cap. 10. 
§20. [Op., tom. ii. col. 607. B. | 

f [Pactus es enim renuntiare ipsi 
(se. diabolo), et pompz, et angelis 
ejus. Convenit inter vos de isto. Heee 
erit amicitia observatione sponsionis, 
ne quid ejus postea resumas ex his 
quee ejerasti, quee illi reddidisti, ne te 
ut fraudatorem, ut pacti transgresso- 
rem judici Deo objiciat, sicut eum 
legimus alibi sanctorum criminatorem, 
et de ipso etiam nomine delatorem, et 
judex te tradat angelo executionis, et 
ille te in carcerem mandet | infernum, 
[unde non dimittaris, nisi modico 
quoque delicto mora resurrectionis ex- 
penso. |—Tertullian. lib. de Anima, 
cap. Xvil. [cap. xxxv. p. 291. B. ed. 

tigalt. | 

5. [Aliud est ad veniam stare, aliud 
ad gloriam pervenire, aliud missum 
in carcerem non exire inde donec sol- 
vat novissimum quadrantem, aliud 
statim fidei et virtutis accipere mer- 
cedem, aliud pro peceatis longo dolore 
cruciatum] emundari [et purgari αἰ] 
igne, [aliud peccata omnia passione 
purgasse, aliud denique pendere in 
diem judicii ad sententiam Domini, 
aliud statim a Domino coronari. (Bel- 
larmine’s reading is: pro peccatis longo 
tempore cruciatum.)} — ὃ, Cyprian. 
[ Epist. lii. ad Antonianum de Con- 
cilio et Novatiano, olim] lib. iv. 
Epist. 2. [p. 72. ed. Benedict. ] 

4 (The passage quoted by Bellarmine 
from Origen in favour of purgatory is : 
Veniendum est ergo omnibus ad 
ignem, veniendum est ad conflatorium. 
Sedet enim Dominus, et conflat, et 
purgat filios Judee. (Malach. iii. 3.) Sed 
et illue cum venitur, si quis multa 
opera bona, et parum aliquid iniqui- 


tatis attulerit, illud parum tanquam 
plumbum igni resolvitur ae purgatur, 
et totum remanet aurum purum.— 
Origen. in Exod. Homil. vi. ὃ 4. Op., 
tom. ii. p. 148. col. 2. B.—The passage 
alluded to by Laud in the text is: 
Interim tam in his que videntur, et 
temporalibus seeculis, quam in illis 
quee non videntur et eterna sunt, 
omnes isti pro ordine, pro ratione, pro 
modo et meritorum dignitatibus dis- 
pensantur: ut alii in primis, alii in 
secundis, nonnulli etiam in ultimis 
temporibus, et per majora ac graviora 
supplicia, necnon et diuturna, ac 
multis, ut ita dicam, seculis tolerata 
asperioribus emendationibus reparati 
et restituti eruditionibus primo ange- 
licis, tum deinde etiam superiorum 
graduum virtutibus, et sic per singula 
ad superiora provecti usque ad ea que 
sunt invisibilia et eterna perveniant, 
singulis videlicet quibusque ccelestium 
virtutum officiis quadam eruditionum 
specie peragratis. Ex quo, ut opinor, 
hoe consequentia ipsa videtur osten- 
dere, unamquamque rationabilem na- 
turam posse ab uno in alterum ordi- 
nem transeuntem per singulos in 
omnes, et ab omnibus in singulos per- 
venire, dum accessus profectuum de- 
fectuumve varios pro motibus vel 
conatibus propriis unusquisque pro 
liberi arbitrii facultate perpetitur. |-— 
Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν, lib. i. cap. 6. [ὃ 3. 
Op., tom. i. p. 70. col. 2. D.]—[ Hoe 
sancta Scriptura non dicit: et evertit 
penitus timorem Dei, dum facile ho- 
mines labuntur ad vitia: putantes 
etiam diabolum, qui auctor malorum 
est, et omnium peccatorum fons, acta 
peenitentia posse salvari, de nostris 
mentibus abjiciatur....Alioquin si 
omnes rationabiles creature eequales 


a μὐννννν.. 


nor precise, on any definite doctrine of Purgatory. 387 


directly contrary to the word of God expounded by 1118 ὅποῖτον 
Church. In the fourth and fifth, the great and learned XXXVI. 
ages of the Church, he names more, as 8. Ambrose.i But 

S. Ambrose says, that some shall be saved quasi per ignem, 

“as it were by fire ;” leaving it as doubtful what was meant 

by that “fire,” as the place itself doth whence it is taken.* 1 Cor. iii. 
S. Jerome, indeed, names a “ purging by fire,”! but it is not δ" 

very plain that he means it after this life. And, howsoever, 

this is most plain, that S. Jerome is at credimus, “we be- 

lieve ” eternal punishment; but he goes no farther than 
arbitramur, “we think” there is a purging. So with him 

it was arbitrary, and therefore, sure, no matter of faith then. 

And, again, he saith, “that some Christians may be saved, 

post penas, ‘after some punishments endured,’ but he neither 

tells us where nor when.” 8. Basil names, indeed, “purgatory- 


sunt; et vel ex virtutibus, vel ex tamen uremur. Quomodo tamen alii 


vitiis sponte propria aut sursum eri- 
guntur, aut in ima merguntur; et 
longo post circuitu atque infinitis 
seeculis, omnium rerum restitutio fiet, 
et una dignitas militantium, que dis- 
tantia erit inter virginem et prosti- 
bulum?... Finge quod libet, annos 
et tempora duplica ; etinfinitas cetates 
congere cruciatibus: si finis omnium 
similis est, preeteritum omne pro ni- 
hilo est: quia non querimus quid 
aliquando fuerimus, sed quid semper 
futuri simus.|—S. Hieronym. in Jone 
Proph. cap. ili. [Op., tom. ili. col. 
1488.]—Porro non [defuerunt, qui 
adeo purgatorium probarint, ut nullas 
peenas, nisi purgatorias, post hance 
vitam agnoverint. Ita Origenes sensit 
&c.|—Bellarmin. de Purgatorio, lib. ii. 
cap. 2. §12. [Op., tom. ii. col. 573. C.] 
—[Qua in re misericordior profecto 
fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum diabolum 
atque angelos ejus post graviora pro 
meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex 
illis cruciatibus eruendos atque socian- 
dos sanctis angelis credidit. Sed illum, 
et propter hoc, et propter alia... non 
immerito reprobavit Ecclesia, ὅσ. |—- 
S. Augustin. de Civitate Dei, lib. xxi. 
cap.17. [Op., tom. vii. col. 637. B.] 

τ §. Augustin. de Civitate Dei, lib. 
xxi. cap. 17. [ubi sup.] 

k [Vee mihi si opus meum arserit, 
et laboris hujus patiar detrimentum ! 
Ktsi salvos faciet Dominus servos suos, 
salvi erimus per fidem, sic tamen salvi 
quasi per ignem: et si non exurimur, 


remaneant in igne, alii pertranseant, 
alio loco nos docet Scriptura divina. 
Nempe in mare rubrum demersus 
populus est Algyptiorum, transivit 
autem populus Hebreeorum: Moyses 
pertransivit, preecipitatus est Pharao ; 
quoniam graviora eum peccata mer- 
serunt. Ho modo _ precipitabuntur 
sacrilegi in lacum ignis ardentis, qui 
superba in Deum jactavere convicia. 
Sequamur ergo hic positi columnam 
ignis, &c. |—S. Ambros. [Enarratio] in 
Psal. xxxvi. 14. [§ 26. Op., tom. i. 
col, 790. A. ] 

1 (Et sicut diaboli et omnium nega- 
torum atque impiorum, qui dixerunt 
in corde suo, Non est Deus, credimus 
zeterna tormenta: sic peccatorum at- 
que impiorum et tamen Christiano- 
rum, quorum opera in igne probanda 
sunt atque purganda, moderatam arbi- 
tramur et mixtam clementiz senten- 
tiam judicis. |—S. Hieronym. in Isaize 
Proph. cap. lxvi. in fine. [Op., tom. ili. 
col. 515. ] 

m (Si autem Origenes omnes ra- 
tionabiles creaturas dicit non esse per- 
dendas, et diabolo tribuit poenitentiam, 
quid ad nos, qui et diabolum et satel- 
lites ejus omnesque impios et preva- 
ricatores dicimus perire perpetuo: et 
Christianos, si in peccato preeventi 
fuerint, salvandos esse post poenas ?|— 
S. Hieronym. Dialog. adversus Pela- 
gianos, lib. i. (ultra medium.) [Op. 
tom. iv. par. 2. col. 502. | 


Gre, 


388 


. 
Correrence fire,” 


WITH 


FIsuer. 


They speak doubtfully on the subject, 


as 8. Ambrose doth.” 


but he relates as uncertainly to that in 1 Cor. iii. [15.] 
As for Paulinus, he speaks for prayer 
for the dead, but not a word of purgatory.° 


And the place in 


S. Gregory Nazianzen? is far from a manifest place; for 


he speaks there of “baptism by fire,” 
phrase to signify purgatory.‘ 
doth, there is a τυχὸν, a fortassis, a 
the words, which Bellarmine cunningly leaves out. 


which is no usual 
But yet, say that here he 
“ peradventure 7” in 
And 


if it be a “ peradventure ye shall then be baptized with 


fire,” 


why then it is at a “ peradventure” too that ye shall 


not. Now such casual stuff as this—peradventure you shall, 
and peradventure you shall not—is no expression for things 
which are valued to be de fide, and to be believed as 


“matters of faith.” 
but with no better success. 


Bellarmine goes on with Lactantius," 
For he says, indeed, that some 


men perstringentur igne, “shall be sharply touched by fire ;” 
but he speaks of such, quorum peccata prevaluerint, “ whose 


sins have prevailed :” 
are for hell, not purgatory. 


Ὁ [Itaque si peccatum detexerimus... 
purgatorius ignis. ἐὰν οὖν γυμνώσωμεν 
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν διὰ τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως, 
ἐποιήσαμεν αὐτὴν ξηρὰν ἄγρωστιν, ἀξίαν 
τοῦ ὑπὸ τοῦ καθαρτικοῦ πυρὸς καταβρω- 
θῆναι. Et paulo post: Non exitium 
comminatur Xe. οὐκ ἀφανισμὸν ἀπειλεῖ, 
ἀλλὰ τὴν κάθαρσιν ὑποφαίνει, κατὰ τὸ 
παρὰ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ εἰρημένον, ὅτι εἴ 
τινος τὸ ἔργον, κ. τ. A.—Pseudo-]S. Ba- 
sil. in Esaiam Proph. cap ix. [ὃ 230. 
Op., in App. ad tom. i. p. 553. Εἰ. et, 
§ 231. ibid. p. 554. B.] 

° (Ob hoe impense rogamus, ut 
quasi frater, quod nobis in Domino 
esse dignaris, unanimos fratres juvans, 
et hane meritis fidei tuee mercedem 
accumules, ut pro eo infirmitati nos- 
tree compatiaris, et orandi labore con- 
spires ; ut misericors Deus... refrige- 
ret animam ejus stillicidiis misericor- 
diz suz per orationes vestras. |— 
S. Paulini, Epist. 1. [ad Amandum, 
id est, Epist. xxxvi. al.xx. §2. Op., 
tom. i. p. 224. ed. Paris. 1685. ] 

Ρ [in altero evo igni &c. absumit. 
τυχὸν ἐκεῖ TS πυρὶ βαπτισθήσονται, τῷ 
τελευταίῳ βαπτίσματι, τῷ ἐπιπονωτέρῳ 
τε καὶ μακροτέρῳ, ὃ ἐσθίει ὡς χόρτον 


τὴν ὕλην, καὶ δαπανᾷ πάσης κακίας 
κουφότητα.) — ὅ. Gregor. Nazianz. 
Orat. xxxix. [(in sancta lumina,) 


§ 19.] in fine, [Op., tom. i. p. 690. D. ] 


and they, in Bellarmine’s doctrine, 


As for 8. Hilary,® he will not 


4] think the first that ever used 
that phrase, “baptism by fire,” was 
Origen. And he used it for martyr- 
dom, as clearly appears by a passage 
of his in Huseb. Hist. lib. vi. cap. 4. 
ed. Grzec.-Lat. Colonize Allobrog. 
1612.1 (The passage is: καὶ γυναικῶν 
δὲ Ἡραὶς ἔτι κατηχουμένη, τὸ βάπτισμα, 

ὥς που φησὶν αὐτὸς, τὸ διὰ πυρὸς 
λαβοῦσα, τὸν βίον ἐξελήλυθεν"---Αρυὰ 
Eccles. Histor. Seriptor. ed. Reading. 
tom. i. p. 262. ] 

τ [Sed et justos cum judicaverit, 
etiam in igni eos examinabit. Tum 
quorum peccata vel pondere, vel 
numero, prevaluerint, perstringentur 
igni atque amburentur. } — Lactant. 
[Divin. Institut.] lib. vii. cap. 21. 
[de Cruciatibus et Poenis Animarum, 
Op., tom. i. p. 574. ed. Lebrun et 
Dufresnoy, Paris. 1748. ] 

s [An cum ex omni otioso verbo 
rationem simus  prestituri, diem 
judicii concupiscemus, in quo nobis 
est ille indefessus ignis subeundus, 
in quo subeunda sunt gravia illa 
expiande ἃ peccatis anime sup- 
plicia?]/—S. Hilar. [Tract.] in Ps. 
exviil. [ Lit. iii.] vers. 20. [Op., col. 
261. A. 





1 (This note was added in Editt. 
1673, and 1686. } 


and with occasional inconsistency.— The maiter not de fide. 389 


It is true he speaks of a fire too, and  Sxrorton 
XXXVIII. 


come home neither. 
one that must be endured; but he tells us it is a punish- 
ment expiande a peccatis anime, “to purge the soul from 
sins.” Now this will not serve Bellarmine’s turn. For 
they of Rome teach, That the sins are forgiven here, and 
that the temporal punishment only remains to be satisfied 
in purgatory: and what need is there then of purging of 
sins? Lest there should not be Fathers enough, he reckons 
in Boetiust too. But he, though not long before a convert, 
yet was so well seen in this point, that he goes no farther 
than puto, “I think” that, after death, some souls are exer- 
cised purgatoria clementia, “with a purgative clemency.” 
But puto, “41 think” it is so, is no expression for “ matter 
of faith.’ The two pregnant authorities which seem to 
come home, are those of 5. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret. 
But for Theodoret, in Scholiis Grecis," which is the place 
Bellarmine quotes, I can find no such thing; and manifest 
it is, Bellarmine * himself took it but upon trust. And for 
S. Gregory Nyssen,’ it is true, some places in him seem 
plain; but then they are made so doubtful by other places 


in him, that I dare not say 


t [P. Sed ne illud quidem, ait, 
quisquam negabit, bonum esse omne, 
quod justum est, contraque quod in- 
justum est, malum liquet esse. B. 
Tum ego: Ista quidem consequentia 
sunt. Sed queeso, inquam, te, nullane 
animarum sgsupplicia post defunctum 
morte corpus relinquis? P. Et magna 
quidem, inquit, quorum alia peenali 
acerbitate, alia vero purgatoria cle- 
mentia exerceri puto. |—Boetius, [de 
Consolatione Philosophize,] lib. iv. 
Prosa 4. [Op., p. 1079. ed. Basil. 
1570. | 

u {The passage quoted as from] 
Theodoret, in 1 Cor. iii., [by Bellar- 
mine, (de Purgator. cap. x. ὅθ Op., 
tom. ii. col. 608. C.) is: Hune ipsum 
ignem purgatorium credimus, in quo 
anime defunctorum probantur, et re- 
purgantur, sicut aurum in conflatorio. 
But nothing like it is extant in the 
place referred to: Op., tom. iii. p. 134. 
C. ed. Paris. 1642. ] 

x [Adducit etiam B. Thomas in 
opusculo primo contra Greecos, (se. in 
fin. apud 3. Thom. Opusce., fol. 9. 1. 
ed. Morelles, Anty. 1612.) Theo- 
doretum explicantem hune locum, 


simply and roundly what his 


(se. 1 Gor. 111. 15.) his verbis: Hune 
credimus ignem purgatorium, quo 
purgantur anime, ut aurum in con- 
flatorio. Gagneius vero eandem sen- 
tentiam ex Graecorum Scholiis Greecis 
verbis ita citat: τοῦτο τὸ πῦρ πιστευό- 
μεν καθαρτήριον, ἐν ᾧ καθαρίζονται αἱ 
ψυχαὶ, καθάπερ χρυσίον ἐν τῷ χωνευ- 
τηρίῳ. |—Bellarmin. de Purgator. lib. i. 
cap. 5. § antepenult. [Op., tom. ii. 
co]. 591. B.] 

y [Velin presenti vita precibus... 
felicitatem. πρὸς τὴν πρώτην μακαριό- 
τητα.... ἤτοι κατὰ τὴν παροῦσαν 
ζωὴν,] διὰ προσευχῆς τε καὶ φιλοσοφίας 
ἐκκαθαρθεὶς, ἢ μετὰ τὴν [ἐνθένδε μετα- 
νάστασιν, διὰ τῆς τοῦ καθαρσίου πυρὸς 
χωνείας.]---ὃ. Gregor. Nyssen. Orat. 
de Mortuis, [Op.,] tom. ii. p. 1066. ed. 
Paris. 1615. [tom. iii. p. 634. D. ed. 
Paris. 1638.—Et infra: ἐν τῷ μὴ 
δύνασθαι μετασχεῖν τῆς θειότητος, μὴ 
τοῦ καθαρσίου πυρὸς} τὸν ἐμμιχθέντα 
τῇ ψυχῇ ῥύπον [ἀποκαθήραντος.] --- 
[Ibid.] p. 1067. [p. 635. D.— Et 
infra: τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν διὰ τῆς εἰς ὕστε- 
ρον ἀγωγῆς) ἐν τῷ καθαρσίῳ πυρὶ ἀπο- 
βαλλόντων τὴν πρὸς τὴν ὕλην προσ- 
πάθειαν"---ΤὈϊ4. p. 1068. [p. 636. A.] 


390 S.Gregory Nyssen’s words do not imply purgatorial fire, in R.C. sense. 


Conrrrencr Judgment was. 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


For he says, “ Men must be purged from 
perturbations, and either by prayers and philosophy, or the 
study of wisdom, or by the furnace of purgatory-fire after 
this life.’ And again, “That a man cannot be partaker 
(θειότητος) of the Divine nature, unless the purging fire doth 
take away the stains that are in his soul.” And again, 
“That after this life, a purgatory-fire takes away the blots 
and propensity to evil.” And, I deny not, divers other 
like places are in him. But first, this is quite another thing 
from the Roman purgatory. For 8. Gregory tells us here, 
that the purgatory he means, purges “ perturbations,” and 
“stains,” and “ blots,’ and “ propensity to evil:” whereas 
the purgatory which Rome now teaches, purges not “ sin, 
but is only satisfactory by way of punishment for sins 
already forgiven, but for which satisfaction was not made 
before their death.”* Secondly, 8. Gregory Nyssen himself 
seems not obscurely to relate to some other fire.* For 
he says expressly, ‘That the soul is to be punished, till the 
vitiosity of it be consumed purgatorio igne”—so the transla- 
tion renders it; but in the original it is τῷ ἀκοιμήτῳ πυρὶ, 
that is, “in a fire that sleeps not,’ which, for aught appears, 
may be understood of a fire that is eternal: whereas the 
fire assigned to purgatory shall cease. Besides, 8. Gregory 
says plainly, “the soul cannot suffer by fire but in the body ; 
and the body cannot be with it till the resurrection.” There- 
fore he must needs speak of a fire after the resurrection, 


z Ttem definimus, si vere poenitentes 
in Dei earitate decesserint, antequam 
dignis poenitentize fructibus de com- 
missis satisfecerint et omissis, [eorum 
animas] pcenis purgatoriis post 
mortem purgari, [et ut a poenis hujus- 
modi releventur, prodesse eis fidelium 
vivorum suffragia, missarum scilicet 
sacrificia, orationes et eleemosynas, et 
alia pietatis officia, que a fidelibus 
pro aliis fidelibus fieri consueverunt, 
.... illas etiam, que post contractam 
peccati maculam, vel in suis corpori- 
bus, vel eisdem exutz corporibus, 
prout superius dictum est, sunt pur- 
gate, in coelum mox recipi, et intueri 
etiam ipsum Deum trinum et unum, 
&e. |—Concil. Florentin. [in definit.] 
circa princip. per Binium, ed. Colon. 
1618. [Coneil. tom. xiii. col. 515. B.] 

“ [καὶ ὥσπερ τὴν ἐμμιχθεῖσαν τῷ 
χρυσίῳ ὕλην οἱ διὰ πυρὸς ἐκκαθαροῦντες, 


οὐ μόνον τὸ νόθον τῷ πυρὶ τήκουσιν, 
ἀλλὰ κατὰ πάσαν ἀνάγκην καὶ τὸ 
καθαρὸν τῷ κιβδήλῳ συγκατατήκεται, 
κἀκείνου δὲ δαπανωμένου τοῦτο μένει, 
οὕτω καὶ τῆς κακίας τῷ ἀκοιμήτῳ πυρὶ 
δαπανωμένης, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ τὴν 
ἐνωθεῖσαν αὐτῇ ψυχὴν ἐν τῷ πυρὶ εἶναι, 
ὡς ἂν τὸ κατεσπαρμένον νόθον καὶ 
ὑλωδες καὶ κίβδηλον ἀπαναλωθῇ τῷ 
αἰωνίῳ πυρὶ δαπανώμενον" ]---ἶ. Gregor. 
Nyssen. de Anima et Resurrect. [Op.,] 
tom. ii. p. 658. [tom. iii. p. 226. C.] 

Ὁ [ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς γραφῆς 
ἀκούω λεγούσης», ὅτι τοῖς κατεγνωσ- 
μένοις ἐπιτεθήσονται δίκαιαι τιμωρίαι, 
πῦρ καὶ σκότος, καὶ σκώληξ᾽ ἃ πάντα 
τῶν συνθέτων καὶ ὑλικῶν σωμάτων 
κολάσεις εἰσὶν: ψυχῆς δὲ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν 
οὔποτ᾽ ἂν ἅψαιτο mip’ K.T.A.]—S. 
Gregor. | Nyssen.] in Christi Resurrec- 
ren Orat. 111. [Op., tom. ili. p. 434. 
A. 


The view mainly derived from Platonism.—S. Augustine. 


which must be either the fire of the general conflagration, 
or hell: purgatory he cannot mean, where, according to 
the Romish tenet, the soul suffers without the body. The 
truth is, divers of the ancients,’ especially Greeks, which 
were a little too much acquainted with Plato’s school,° 
philosophized and disputed upon this and some other points 
with much obscurity, and as little certainty. So, upon the 
whole matter, in the fourth and fifth hundred year, you see 


here is none that constantly 


and perspicuously affirm it. 


And as for S. Augustine, he said,4 and unsaid® it, and 


at the last, left it doubtful ;‘ 


¢ Non expedit philosophari altius, 
&e.— Orig. cont. Celsum, lib. vi. [The 
first twenty-one sections of the sixth 
book against Celsus are occupied by 
Origen in a discussion of the Platonic 
philosophy, together with a proof of 
its inferiority to Christian doctrine. ] 

4 Constat animas purgari post 
hane vitam.—S. Augustin. de Civitate 
Dei, lib. xxi. cap. 24. [§ 2. Op., tom. vii. 
col. 641. F. (not.“.) This passage is thus 
cited by Bellarmine, de Purgatorio, 
lib. i. cap. 10. (Op., tom. ii. col. 607. 
D.,) from whom Laud seems to have 
taken it: Tales, (sc. adultos leviori- 
bus peccatis maculatos) constat ante 
judicii diem per poenas temporales, 
quas eorum spiritus patiuntur, pur- 
gatos, (receptis corporibus) eterni 
ignis suppliciis non tradendos. It 
occurs in the edition of Erasmus, but 
is abandoned by the Benedictine 
editors, on the ground that minime 
reperitur in aliis libris, neque cum 
antecedentibus et subsequentibus ver- 
bis satis coheeret. | 

e [Si igitur mortuo corpore] ad 
paradisum anima mox vocatur.... 
non initium meeroris mors ista, sed 
finis est:] nec incipiunt post hanc 
justorum flagella, sed desinunt.— 
[ Pseudo-] S. Augustin. contra Feli- 
cianum [Arianum, de unitate Trini- 
tatis, | cap. xv. [apud Op., S. Augustin. 
tom. viii. in Appen. col. 48. Ὁ. This 
work is adjudged to be spurious. ]—Et 
duo tantum loca esse, [ait] 8. Augus- 
tinus, [Serm. clxxxviii. olim] Serm. 
xix. de verbis Apostoli, [Tit. i.] cap. 
3. ΠΡ; tom. v. col. 850. B. The 
passage seems to be: Quibus autem 
(Deus) non est daturus regnum ccelo- 
rum, quid eis restat, nisi poena 
gehennarum ?|— Et, [S. Augustin. | de 
Civitate Dei, lib. xxi. cap. 16. in fin. 


which, had it then been re- 


negat, nisi sit ignis ille in consum- 
matione seculi. [His words are: 
Quisquis igitur cupit poenas evadere 
sempiternas, non solum baptizetur, 
verum etiam justificetur in Christo, 
ac si vere transeat a diabolo ad 
Christum. Purgatorias autem pcenas 
nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud 
ultimum tremendumque judicium. 
Nequaquam tamen negandum est, 
etiam ipsum eternum ignem pro 
diversitate meritorum, quamvis malo- 
rum, aliis leviorem, aliis futurum esse 
graviorem, sive ipsius vis atque ardor 
pro pena digna cujusque varietur, 
sive ipse aqualiter ardeat, sed non 
zequali molestia sentiatur.—Op., tom. 
vii. col. 636. F.] 

f [Tale aliquid etiam post hance 
vitam fieri, incredibile non est, et 
utrum ita sit, | queeri potest: [et aut 
inveniri, aut latere, nonnullos fideles 
per ignem quemdam purgatorium, 
quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia 
dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusque 
salvari; non tamen tales de quibus 
dictum est, quod Regnum Dei non 
possidebunt, nisi convenienter poeni- 
tentibus eadem crimina remittan- 
tur.] — 8. Augustin. in Enchiridion 
[de Fide, Spe, et Caritate,] cap. Ixix. 
[Op., tom. vi. col. 222. F.]—[Post 
istius sane corporis mortem, donec ad 
illum veniatur, qui post resurrectio- 
nem corporum futurus est damnatio- 
nis et remunerationis ultimus dies, si 
hoe temporis intervallo spiritus de- 
functorum ejusmodi ignem dicuntur 
perpeti, quem non sentiant illi qui 
non habuerunt tales mores et amores 
in hujus corporis vita, ut eorum ligna, 
foenum, stipula consumantur ; ~ alii 
vero sentiant qui ejusmodi secum edi- 
ficia portaverunt, sive ibi tantum, sive 
et hic et ibi, sive ideo hic ut non 10], 


391 


SEoTIoN 
XXXVIII. 


1 {ancient.. 
male Edit. 
1639.] 


392 


Conrrrence ceived as a point of faith, he durst not have done. 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


The Roman doctrine of Purgatory tested by three marks of an 


Indeed, 
then, in 8. Gregory the Great’s time, in the beginning of the 
sixth age, purgatory was grown to some perfection. For 
S. Gregory § himself is at scio—(it was but at puto a little 
before)—“ I know that some shall be expiated in purgatory 
flames.” And therefore I will easily give Bellarmine all that 
follow ; for, after this time, purgatory was found too warm 
a business to be suffered to cool again ; and in the after-ages 
more were frighted, than led by proof, into the belief of it. 
XVITI.—Now by this we see also, that it could not be a 
tradition ; for then we might have traced it by the smoke to 
the Apostles’ times. Indeed Bellarmine would have it such a 
tradition ; for he tells us out of 5. Augustine, “‘ That that is 
rightly believed to be delivered by apostolical authority, 
which the whole Church holds, and hath ever held, and yet 
is not instituted by any council.”’”® And he adds, “ That 
Purgatory is such a tradition, so constantly held in the 


seecularia, quamvis a damnatione 
venialia concremantem ignem transi- 
toriz tribulationis inveniant, non 
redarguo, quia] forsitan verum est. 
[ Potest quippe ad istam tribulationem 
pertinere etiam ipsa mors carnis, 
quz de peccati primi perpetratione 
concepta est, ut secundum cujusque 
eedificium tempus quod eam sequitur 
ab unoquoque sentiatur. |}—S. Augus- 
tin. de Civitate Dei, lib. xxi. cap. 26. 
[§ 4. Op., tom. vii. col. 649. A.]— 
Quid 5. Paulus senserit 1 Cor. iii. de 
igne illo, malo intelligentiores, et 
doctiores audire. —S. Augustin. lib. 
de Fide et Operibus, cap. xvi. [§ 27. 
ΟΡ., tom. vi. col. 180. B. His words 
are: Hic a me fortasse queratur, de 
ipsa Pauli Apostoli sententia quid ego 
sentiam, et quonam modo intelligen- 
dam putem. Fateor, hine mallem 
audire intelligentiores atque doctiores, 
qui sic eam exponant, ut illa omnia 
vera et inconcussa permaneant, que 
supra commemoravi, et quacunque 
alia non commemoravi, quibus aper- 
tissime Scriptura testatur, nihil pro- 
desse fidem, nisi eam quam definivit 
Apostolus, id est, que per dilectionem 
operatur ; sine operibus autem salvare 
non posse, neque preeter ignem, neque 
per ignem: quia si per ignem salvat, 
ipsa utique salvat. | 

& [Domine ne in furore, &c. Quasi 
dicat: Scio futurum esse, ut post 
hujus vite exitum alii flammis ex- 


pientur purgatoriis, alii sententiam 
eeternze subeant damnationis. Sed 
quia illum transitorium ignem omni 
tribulatione preesenti zestimo intolera- 
biliorem, non solum in furore zternz 
damnationis opto non argui, sed etiam 
in ira traseuntis timeo correptionis 
purgari.]— 8S. Gregor. [Magn.] in 
Psalm. iii. poenitentialem, in princip. 
[§1. Op., tom. iii. par. 2. col. 481. E.] 

h [Et si quisquam in hac re auctori- 
tatem divinam querat, quamquam | 
quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec con- 
ciliis institutum, sed semper retentum 
est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica 
traditum rectissime creditur, &e.—S. 
Augustin. de Baptismo contra Dona- 
tistas, lib. iv. cap. 24. [Op., tom. ix. col. 
140. C.J—Nee ad summos pontifices 
referri potest, addit Melch. Canus, 
de Locis [Theolog.] lib. iii. [de 
tradit. Apostol.] cap. 4. in princip. 
| His words are: Prima via ab Augus- 
tino aperitur cum aliis locis, tum 
lib. iv. contra Donatist. in hae verba: 
Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, &e. (ut 
sup.) Hst autem ratio hujus in 
promptu. Sienim consuetudinis cu- 
jJusquam diu in tota ecclesia ob- 
servatee, originem et principium, nec 
ad summos pontifices, nec ad concilia 
Episcoporum referre possumus, sed 
ea consuetudo ad apostolorum usque 
temporaretro trahitur, conficitur plane 
illam ab apostolis esse profectam.— 
pp. 189, 190. ed. Lovan, 1569.] 


Apostolic tradition.—Its foundation cannot be luid in Scripture. 


whole Church, Greek and Latin; and “that we do not find 
any beginning of this belief.”! Where I shall take the 
boldness to observe these three things: First, That the doc- 
trine of Purgatory was not held ever in the whole Catholic 
Church of Christ; and this appears by the proofs of Bel- 
larmine himself produced,* and I have before examined ;! 
for there it is manifest, that scarce two Fathers directly 
affirm the belief of Purgatory for full six hundred years 
after Christ. Therefore Purgatory is no matter of faith, nor 
to be believed as descending from “ apostolical authority,” 
by S. Augustine’s rule. Secondly, That we can find a 
“ beginning” of this doctrine, and a beginner too—namely, 
Origen: and neither Bellarmine nor any other is able to 
show any one Father of the Church that said it before him ; 
therefore Purgatory is not to be believed as a doctrine 
delivered by “ apostolical authority,” by Bellarmine’s own 
rule, for it hath a “ beginning.” Thirdly, I observe, too, 
that Bellarmine cannot well tell where to lay the foun- 
dation of Purgatory, that it may be safe: for, first, he labours 
to found it upon Scripture. To that end he brings no 
fewer than ten places out of the Old Testament, and nine 
out of the New, to prove it; and yet, fearing lest these 
places be strained, as indeed they are, and so too weak to 
be laid under such a vast pile of building as Purgatory is, he 
flies to unwritten tradition ;" and by this “ word of God 
unwritten,’ he says, “ it is manifest that the doctrine of 
Purgatory was delivered by the Apostles.” Sure, if nineteen 
places of Scripture cannot prove it, I would be loth to fly 
to tradition ; and if recourse to tradition be necessary, then 
certainly those places of Scripture made not the proof they 
were brought for. And, once more, How can Bellarmine say 
here, that we find not the “ beginning” hujus dogmatis, “ of 
this article,” when he had said before, that he had found it in 
nineteen places of Scripture? For if in these places he 


* Non invenimus initium hujus 


dogmatis, sed omnes veteres Greeci et 
Latini, &c.— Bellarmin. de Purgat. 
lib. i. cap. 15. § 14. [vide supra, p. 385. 
note ».] 

* [Id.] de Purgat. lib. i. cap. 10. 
[vide supra, p. 385. note “. 

' Sect. xxxviii. No. 16. [vide supra, 
Ῥ. 385.] 


™ Bellarmin. de Purgator. lib. i. 
capp. 3, 4. [Op., tom. ii. col. 574 
— 581.] 

" De tertio modo perspicuum est, 
&e.—Bellarmin. de Purgator. lib. i. 
cap. 15. § 10. et ὃ 14, [Op., tom. ii. 
col. 625. B,C. ubi supra, p. 385. ] 
note >, 


393 


SECTION 
XXXVIII. 


394 R.C.authorities admit that the Doct. is neither primitive, nor universal. 


Conrerence Could not find the beginning of the doctrine of Purgatory, 


WITH 
FISHER. 





he is false while he says he did; and if he did find it there, 


— then he is false here in saying we find no beginning of it. 


And for all his brags of “ omnes veteres,° ‘all the ancient’ 
Greek and Latin do constantly teach Purgatory ;” yet 
Alphonsus a Castro deals honestly and plainly, and tells us, 
“That the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is 
fere nulla, ‘almost none at all,’ especially in the Greeks.” ? 
And he adds, ‘That hereupon Purgatory is not believed by 
the Grecians to this very day.” And what now, I pray, 
after all this, may I not so much as “ deliberately doubt” of 
this, because it is now defined, and but now in a manner, 
and thus? No, sure. So A.C. tells you. Doubt? No. 
For when you had fooled the Archbishop of Spalato back to 
Rome, there you either made him say, or said it for him, 
—for in print it is, and under his name,—“ That since it is 
now defined by the Church, a man is as much bound to believe 
there is a Purgatory, as that there is a Trinity of Persous in 
the Godhead.” 4 How far comes this short of blasphemy, to 
make the Trinity and Purgatory things alike, and equally 
credible ? 

XVIII.—Yea, but A. C. will give you a reason why no man 
may “ deliberately doubt,” much less deny, anything that is 
defined by a General Council: and his reason is, “ because 
every such doubt and denial is a breach from the one saving 
faith.” This is a very good reason, if it be true. But how 
appears it to be true? How? Why, “ it takes away,” saith 
A. C. © infallible credit from the Church ; and so, the Divine 
revelation being not sufficiently applied, it cannot, according 


© Omnes veteres Greeci et Latini, 
&e.—Bellarmin. de Purgat. lib.i. cap. 
15. ὃ 14. [Ὁ] supra, p. 385. note ».] 

P De purgatorio in antiquis scrip- 
toribus potissimum Greecis fere nulla 
mentio est. Qua de causa usque in 
hodiernum diem Purgatorium non est 
a Grecis creditum.—Alphon. a Cas- 
tro, advers. Heres. lib. viii. verb. 
Indulgentiz, [ubi sup. p. 377. note £.] 

4 Purgatorium nullum esse,.... 
[hi et similes errores, ac] manifest 
heereses . . . [scopuli sunt miserabiles, 
wxe.|—M. Anton. de Dominis, sui re- 
ditus ex Anglia consilium exponit, 
ed. Paris. 1623. p. 17.— Merita, In- 
dulgentia, et reliqua, quae superius 


ut in ecclesia definita, commemoravi, 
sunt omnes articuli fundamentales, 
quia non minus nituntur revelationi, 
quam priora de Trinitate. — Ibid. 
p. 82.—And so much A.C. himself 
says of all points in which, in the 
doctrine of the faith, Protestants 
differ from them.—In his ‘ Relation 
of the first Conference,” p. 28. [The 
passage to which Laud probably 
alludes is: “ M. Fisher replied, say- 
ing, first, that if time permitted, 
he could prove all points of divine 
faith to be fundamental, supposing 
they were points generally held, or 
defined by full authority of the 
Church,” p. 18.] 


To doubt of things not absolutely necessary, no breach of the Faith, 


to the ordinary course of God’s providence, breed infallible 
belief in us.” Why, but “deliberately to doubt” and “ con- 
stantly to deny,” upon the grounds and in the manner 
aforesaid,’ doth not take away “ infallible credit”? from the 
whole Church, but only from the definition of a General 
Council, some way or other misled; and that in things not 
absolutely necessary to all men’s salvation, for of such things 
A.C. here speaks expressly. Now, to take away “infallible 
credit ” from some definitions of General Councils, in things 
not absolutely necessary to salvation, is no breach upon 
the “one saving faith”? which is necessary, nor upon the 
credit of the Catholic Church of Christ in things absolutely 
necessary, for which only it had infallible assistance pro- 
mised ; so that no breach being made upon the faith, nor no 
credit, which ever it had, being taken from the Church, the 
Divine revelation may be, and is, as sufficiently applied 
as ever it was; and, in the ordinary course of God’s pro- 
vidence, may breed as infallible belief in things necessary to 
salvation as ever it did. 

XIX.—But A. C. will prove his reason before given, and 
therefore he asks us out of 8. Paul, “ ‘ How shall men believe 
unless they hear? how shall they hear without a preacher? 
and how shall they preach’ to wit, infallibly, ‘ unless they be 
sent,’ —that is, from God, and infallibly assisted by His Spirit ?” 
Here is that which I have twice, at least, spoken to already ; 
namely, That A.C. by this will make every priest im the 
Church of Rome that hath learning enough to preach, and 
* dissents not from that Church, an infallible preacher ; 
which no Father of the Primitive Church did ever assume to 
himself, nor the Church give him. And yet the Fathers of 
the Primitive Church were sent, and from God ; were assisted, 
and by God; and did sufficiently propose to men the divine 
revelation, and did by it beget and breed up faith, saving 
faith, in the souls of men; though no one among them since 
the Apostles was an infallible preacher.t. And A. C. should 


τ Sect. xxxvili. No. 5. [vide supra, 
p- 366.] 

s “Though everything defined to 
be a divine truth in General Councils 
is not absolutely necessary to be ex- 
pressly known, and actually believed 
by all sorts,” &.—A. C. p. 71. 


t [Et inde est, quod etiam auc- 
toritatibus philosophorum sacra doc- 
trina utitur, ubi per rationem natu- 
ralem veritatem cognoscere potuerunt 
.... Sed tamen sacra doctrina hujus- 
modi auctoritatibus utitur quasi extra- 
neis argumentis et probabilibus. Auc- 


395 


SEcTION 


ἌΓΟΣ 40s (ke 
Rom. x. 
14,15. 


396 


Rom. x. 14, 15, no guarantee of Infallibility. 


Conrrrencn have done very well here to have made it manifest, that this 
Scripture, “* How shall they preach?’ (to wit, infallibly,)” 
is so interpreted by “ unanime consent of fathers, and defi- 
nitions of Councils,” as he bragged before, that they use to 
interpret Scripture ; for I do not find “ ‘ How shall they 
preach ?’ (to wit, infallibly,)”" to be the comment of any one 


WITH 
FIsHer. 


toritatibus autem canonice scrip- 
turee utitur proprie ex necessitate 
argumentando. Auctoritatibus autem 
aliorum doctorum ecclesiz, quasi 
arguendo ex propriis, sed probabiliter. 
Innititur enim fides nostra reve- 
lationi Apostolis et prophetis factee, 
qui canonicos libros scripserunt.... 
Unde dicit Augustinus in Epistola 
ad Hieronym.: Solis enim scriptu- 
rarum libris, qui canonici appellantur, 
didici hune (timorem) honorem(que) 
deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem in 
seribendo errasse aliquid firmissime 
credam.] Alios autem ita lego, ut 
quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque 
prepolleant, non ideo verum putem, 
quod ipsi ita senserunt, vel scripserunt. 
—S. Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. 
Qjueest.| i. A[rtic.] 8. [Respons.] ad 
2. ex 8. Augustin. Epist. [lxxxii. ad 
Hieronym.olim] xix. {apud Op., tom.ii. 
col. 190. F.|—Mihi non credas, nisi de- 
monstrationem accipias ex sacris lite- 
ris. [δεῖ yap περὶ τῶν θείων καὶ ἁγίων 
τῆς πίστεως μυστηρίων, μηδὲ τὸ τυχὸν 
ἄνευ τῶν θείων παραδίδοσθαι γραφῶν" 
καὶ μὴ ἁπλῶς πιθανότησι καὶ λόγων 
κατασκευαῖς παραφέρεσθαι" μηδὲ ἐμοὶ τῷ 
ταῦτά σοι λέγοντι, ἁπλῶς πιστεύσῃ" 
ἐὰν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν καταγγελλο- 
μένων ἀπὸ τῶν θείων μὴ λάβῃς γραφῶν. 
—S. Cyril. Hierosolym. Cateches. iv. 
[cap. 17. col. 60. A. ed. Benedict. ] 

" Verba heee Apostoli non possunt 
intelligi de fide infusa, illa enim 
immediate a Deo creata est, et non 
ex auditu ut hee. Apertissime col- 
ligitur ex [Gabr.] Biel. in III. Sentent. 
D[istinct.] xxv. Q[ueest.] 2. A[rtic. ] 
2. Conclus. 1. [I.]—Ergo fides ac- 
quisita necessaria est.—Ibid. [The 
whole passage runs thus :—Quantum 
ad secundum articulum est prima con- 
clusio: Fides acquisita ad credendum 
fidei articulos est necessaria : probatur 
illa conclusio auctoritate apostoli ad 
Rom. x. Fides ex auditu est, &e. Et 
promisit : Quomodo credent ei, &e. 

non possunt intelligi de fide 
infusa quod non est ex auditu preedi- 
cationis; sed immediate creata a Deo. | 
—Sed preeter [fidem] acquisitam, quod 


requiratur fides infusa, non solum 
propter intentionem actus, sed etiam 
propter assensum, et certitudinem, 
[patet,] quia [hoc] non potest esse a 
fide acquisita, scilicet firmus assensus : 
quia fide acquisita nullus credit alicui, 
nisi quem scit posse falli, et fallere, 
licet credat ipsum non velle fallere— 
[Duns] Scotus in III. Sentent. D[is- 
tinct.] xxiii. Q[ueest.] unic. [Schol. 15. 
Op., tom. vii. p. 469.] Therefore, in 
the judgment of your own School, 
your preachers can both deceive and 
be deceived ; and therefore certainly 
are not infallible. And M{elchior] 
Canus very expressly makes this but 
an introduction to infallible faith ; 
Primum ergo id statuo, juxta com- 
munem legem aliqua exteriora et 
humana incitamenta necessaria esse, 
quibus ad evangelii fidem inducamur. 
Quomodo enim ecredent ei, quem non 
audierunt +—[Melch.] Canus, de Locis 
Theologicis, lib. iv. cap. 8. ὃ 6. [p. 
51.J—Et iterum: Si fides infusa ita 
Jjidet acquisite niteretur, tanquam suo 
fundamento ; ipsum fundamentum 
fidei nostre non esset divina sed 
humana veritas.—Ibid. § 8. [p. 54. 
His words are: Eorum hie errorem 
dissimulare non possum, qui asserunt, 
fidem nostram eo, tanquam inultimam 
credendi causam, reducendam esse, ut 
credamus ecclesiam esse veracem : cui 
prius, inquiunt, assentimur per fidem 
acquisitam quam perinfusam. Quod 
si verum esset, prima ratio formalis 
infusee fidei, non esset veritas increata, 
sed creata. Quare fides nostra non 
inniteretur tanquam suo fundamento 
divinee veritati, sed humane. Deinde 
cum assensus conclusionis non sit 
certior principiorum assensu.... si 
fides infusa fidei acquisite niteretur, 
tune Deum esse trinum, cui assen- 
timur per infusam fidem, non esset 
nobis, aut firmius, aut certius, quam 
ecclesiam esse veracem: cui juxta 
horum sensum assentimur per fidem 
acquisitam, et per humanarum causa- 
rum incitamenta.] Therefore surely 
A.C. abuses this place of the Apostle 
very boldly. 


Alleged consequences of the fallibility of a Council considered. 397 


of the Fathers, or any other approved author: and let πὶ gxorox 
show it if he can. XXXVI. 
XX.—After this—for I see the good man is troubled, and 
forward and backward he goes—he falls immediately upon 
this question : “ If a whole General Council defining what is A.C. p.71. 
divine truth, be not believed to be sent and assisted by God’s 
Spirit, and consequently of infallible credit, what man in the 
world can be said to be of infallible credit?”? Well, first, 
A.C. hath very ill luck in fitting his conclusion to his 
premises, and his consequent to his antecedent; and so it is 
here with him. For a General Council may be assisted by 
God’s Spirit, and in a great measure too, and in a greater 
than any private man not inspired, and yet not “ conse- 
quently be of infallible credit,’ for all assistance of God’s 
Spirit reaches not up to infallibity. I hope the ancient 
Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were assisted 
by God’s Spirit, and in a plentiful measure, too; and yet A.C. 
himself will not say they were infallible. And, secondly, for 
the question itself: “ If a General Council be not, what man 
in the world can be said to be, of infallible credit?” Truly, 
I will make you a ready answer: No man. Not the pope 
himself? No. “ Let God and His word be true, and every Rom. iii. 4. 
man a liar ;” for so, more or less, every man will be found to 
be: and this is neither damage to the Church, nor wrong to 
the person of any. 
XX1I.—But then A.C. asks a shrewder question than this: A.C. p.71. 
“ Tf such a Council, lawfully called, continued, and confirmed, 
may err in defining any one divine truth, how can we be 
infallibly certain of any other truth defined by it? For if it 
may err in one, why not in another, and another, and so in 
all?”* It is most true, if such a Council may err in one, it 
may in another, and another, and so in all of like nature. 
I say, in all of like nature: and A. C. may remember he 
expressed himself a little before, to speak of “ the defining A. ©. p. 71. 
of such divine truths as are not absolutely necessary to be 
expressly known and actually believed of all sorts of men.” 
Now there is, there can be, no necessity of an “ infallible 
certainty ” in the whole Catholic Church, and much less in a 
General Council, of things “ not absolutely necessary” in 





* Sect. x. No. 15. [vide supra, p. 44.] 


398 


To allow that General Councils may decree things not necessary, 


Coxrerencr themselves. For Christ did not intend to leave an “ infal- 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


ACh it 


~I 


bo 


_lible certainty” in His Church to satisfy either contentious, or 
curious, or presumptuous spirits ; and therefore, in things not 
fundamental, not necessary, it is no matter if Councils err in 
one, and another, and a third, the “ whole Church” having 
power and means enough to see that no Council err in 
necessary things: and this is certainty enough for the 
Church to have, or for Christians to expect ; especially since 
the foundation is so strongly and so plainly laid down in 
Scripture and the Creed, that a modest man might justly 
wonder why any man should run to any later Council, 
at least for any “ infallible certainty.” 

. XXII.—yYet A. C. hath more questions to ask ; and his next 
is, “ How we can, according to the ordinary course, be infal- 
libly assured that it errs in one, and not in another, when it 
equally, by one and the same authority, defines both to be 
divine truth?” <A. C., taking here upon him to defend 
M. Fisher the Jesuit, could not but see what I had formerly 
written concerning this difficult question about General 
Councils; and to all that, being large, he replied little 
or nothing. Now, when he thinks that may be forgotten, or 
as if it did not at all lie in his way, he here turns questionist, 
to disturb that business, and indeed the Church, as much as 
he can. But to this question also I answer again, If any 
General Council do now err, either it errs in things abso- 
lutely necessary to salvation, or in things not necessary. 
If it err in things necessary, we can be infallibly assured by 
the Scripture, the Creeds, the four first Councils, and 
the whole Church, where it errs in one and not in another. 
If it be in non necessariis, “in things not necessary,” it is not 
requisite that we should have for them an infallible assurance. 
As for that which follows, it is notoriously both cunning and 
false. It is false, to suppose that a General Council defining 
two things for divine truths, and erring in one but not 
erring in another, doth define both equally “ by one and the 
same authority:’ and it is cunning, because these words, 
“by the same authority,” are equivocal, and must be 
distinguished, that the truth, which A. C. would hide, may 
appear. Thus, then, suppose a General Council erring in 


vy Sect. xxv. No. 5. [vide supra, pp. 183, 184.] 


or without authority of SS., does not involve allowing private judgment. 899 


one point, and not in another; it doth define both, and Snorton 
equally by the same delegated authority which that Council seach 
hath received from the Catholic Church. But it doth not 
define both, and much less equally, “ by the same authority of 
the Scripture,” which must be the Council’s rule as well as 
private men’s; no, nor by the same authority of the whole 
Catholic Church, who did not intentionally give them equal 
power to define truth, and error fortruth. And I hope A.C. 
dares not say the Scripture (according to which all Councils 
that will uphold divine truth must determine) doth equally 
give either ground or power to define error and truth. 
XXIII.—To his former questions A. C. adds, ‘ That if we A.C. p. 72. 
leave this to be examined by any private man, this examination, 
not being infallible, had need to be examined by another, and 
this by another, without end, or ever coming to infallible 
certainty necessarily required in that one faith which is 
necessary to salvation, and to that peace and unity which 
ought to be in the Church.” Will this inculcating the 
same thing never be left? I told the Jesuit before,’ that 
I give no way to any private man to be judge of. a General 
Council; and there also I showed the way how an erring 
Council might be rectified, and the peace of the Church 
either preserved or restored, without lifting any private 
spirit above a Council, and without this process in infinitum, 
which A. C. so much urges, and which is so much declined 
in all sciences.* For as the understanding of a man must 
always have somewhat to rest upon, so must his faith ; but 
a “private man,”? first for his own satisfaction, and after 
for the Church’s, if he have just cause, may consider of and 
examine, by the “judgment of discretion” * though not of 


z Sect. xxxii. No. 5; Sect. xxxiii. pyv;|]—Aristot. Metaphys. lib. ii. [eap. 
Consid. vii. No. 4. [vide supra, p.250. 4. ὃ 1. Op., tom. viii. p. 48. ed. 


et p. 285. ] Bekker. ] 
4 [κατὰ μὲν οὖν δόξαν συλλογιζομένοις Ὁ Sect. xxxviii. No. 15. [vide supra, 
καὶ μόνον διαλεκτικῶς, δῆλον, ὅτι τοῦτο Ῥ. 384.] 


μόνον σκεπτέον, εἰ ἐξ ὧν ἐνδέχεται ἐνδοξ- ¢ [ Investigandum est, an ad papam, 


οτάτων γίνεται 6 συλλογισμός .. . . ap 
οὖν τοῦτο ἀνάγκη στῆναι, ἢ ἐνδέχεται 
εἰς ἄπειρον ἰέναι ;|—Aristot. [Analyt. ] 
Post. lib. i. [eap. 19. ὃ 4. et 5644. et 
cap. 20. Op., tom. i. p. 209. ed. Bekker. ] 
- Εἰ, [εἴτε γὰρ μὴ ἔστι τι παρὰ τὰ καθ᾽ 
ἕκαστα, τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ἄπειρα, τῶν 
δ᾽ ἀπείρων πῶς ἐνδέχεται λαβεῖν ἐπιστή- 


vel ad ecclesiam, seu concilium eam 
repreesentans, ultima eorum quee sunt 
de fide decisio ac determinatio spec- 
tet.] Hic [enim] non loquimur de deci- 
sione, seu determinatione doctrinali, 
que ad unumquemque virum peritum 
spectare dignoscitur; sed de autho- 
ritativa et judiciali, &c.—Jac. Al- 


400 Necessary Faith determined by H.S.—Creeds—and first four Gen.Cs- 


Conrrrence power, even the definitions of a General Council. But A.C. 


WITH 
FIsHER. 





1Cor.i. 10. 
Phil. ii. 2. 


concludes well, “ that an infallible certainty is necessary for 
that one faith which is necessary to salvation :” and of that, 
as I expressed before,‘ a most “ infallible certainty ” we have 
already in the Scripture, the Creeds, and the four first 
General Councils, to which, for things “ necessary and 
fundamental in the faith,” we need no assistance from other 
General Councils. And some of your own,° very honest and 
very learned, were of the same opinion with me. And for 
the “ peace and unity of the Church in things absolutely 
necessary,” we have the same infallible direction that we 
have for “ faith:’ but in “ things not necessary,’ though 
they be divine truths also, if about them Christian men do 
differ, it is no more than they have done, more or less, in 
all ages of the Church; and they may differ, and yet 
preserve the “one necessary faith,” and charity,£ too, entire, 
if they be so well minded. I confess it were heartily to be 
wished, that in these things also men might be “ all of one 
mind and one judgment,” to which the Apostle exhorts. But 
this cannot be hoped for till the Church be triumphant over 


main. libell. de Authoritate Ecclesiz, 
&e. cap. x. in princip. [apud Opuscula 
Aurea Jac. Almain. fol. lvi. ed. Paris. 
1517. Et apud Gersoni Op., tom. 
ii. col. 1001. ed. Dupin. ] 

4 Sect. xxxviii. No. 1. [vide supra, 
p. 361.] 

ὁ Sunt [tamen] qui nescio qua 
ducti ratione, [contrarium] sentiant, 
[dicentes,] non esse opus Generali 
Concilio (de Constantiensi loquitur) 
dicentes, omnia bene a patribus nos- 
tris ordinata ac constituta, modo ab 
omnibus legitime ac fideliter serva- 
rentur. Fatemur equidem id ipsum 
esse verissimum. Attamen cum eorum 
[ferme] omnium servetur nihil, &.— 
Pet. de Alliaco, [Card. Cameracen- 
sis,] libell. de Reformatione Ecclesiz, 
foblat. in Concil. Constant.] in fin, 
[These words are not those of the 
Cardinal himself, but are to be found 
in an editorial conclusion ad Lectorem, 
appended to an edition of the above 
tract, by the editor Orthuinus Gratius, 
apud Fascicul. Rerum Expetendarum, 
&e. fol. eeviii. 7.—Cf. p. 147. note *%.] 
—So that after-Councils are rather to 
decree for observance, than to make 
any new determinations of the faith. 


f Non omnis [autem] error, in his 
que fidei sunt, est [peccatum] infi- 
delitatis vel heeresis.—Holkot. in I. 
Sentent. Q[ueest.] i. [Respons.] ad 4. 
K. [ubi sup. p. 371. note ”.] 

& {Ceeterum | scimus quosdam quod 
semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec 
propositum suum facile mutare, sed 
salvo inter collegas pacis et con- 
cordiz vinculo, queedam propria que 
apud se semel sint usurpata, retinere. 
Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam 
facimus, aut legem damus, &c.—S. 
Cyprian. [ Epist. lxxii. ad Stephanum 
de Concilio,} olim lib. ii. Epist. i. 
[in fine. Op., p. 129.]—Concordia, quee 
est caritatis effectus, est unio volun- 
tatum, non [unio] opinionum.— §, 
Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] Secund. Se- 
cund. Q[ueest.] xxxvii. A[rtic.] 1. in 
conclus.— Dissensio de minimis et de 
opinionibus, repugnat quidem paci 
perfectze, in qua plene veritas cog- 
noscetur, et omnis appetitus comple- 
bitur: non tamen repugnat paci 
imperfectze, qualis habetur in via.— 
8. Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] Secund. 
Seeund. Q[uest.] xxix. A[rtic.] 3. 
{Respons.] ad 2. 


Yet Heresies must exist—their true causes. 


all human frailties, which here hang thick and close about 
her; the want both of “ unity and peace” proceeding too 
often, even where religion is pretended, from men and their 
humours, rather than from things, and errors to be found in 
them. 

XXIV.—And so A. C. tells me, “ That it is not, therefore,” 
as I would persuade, “the fault of Councils’ definitions, but 
the pride of such as will prefer, and not submit their private 
judgments, that lost, and continues the loss of, peace and 
unity of the Church, and the want of certainty in that one 
aforesaid soul-saving faith.” Once again I am bold to tell 
A.C. that there is no want of certainty, most infallible 
certainty, of “that one soul-saving faith.” And if for other 
opinions, which flutter about it, there be a difference, a 
dangerous difference, as at this day there is, yet necessary 
it is not that therefore, or for prevention thereof, there 
should be such a “certainty,” an “infallible certainty,” in 
these things. For he understood himself well, that said 
Oportet esse hereses ; “There must, there will be heresies.” 
And wheresoever that necessity lies, it is, out of doubt, 
enough to prove that Christ never left such an infallible 
assurance as is able to prevent them, or such a mastering 
power in His Church as is able to overawe them ; but they 
come with their oportet about them, and they rise and spring 
in all ages very strangely. But, in particular, for that which 
first caused, and now continues the loss of, unity in the 
Church of Christ, as I make no doubt but that the pride of 
men is one cause, so yet can I not think that pride is the 
adequate and sole cause thereof. But in part pride caused 
it, and pride on all sides: pride in some that would not at 
first, nor will not since, submit their private judgments, 
where with good conscience they may and ought; and 
pride in others, that would not first, nor will not yet, mend 
manifest, great, and dangerous errors, which with all good 
conscience they ought to do. But it is not pride, not to 
submit to known and gross errors; and the definitions of 
some Councils—perhaps the Lateran, Constance, and Trent,— 
have been greater and more urgent causes of breach of unity 
than the pride of men hath been, which yet I shall never 


excuse, wherever it is. 
VOL. II.— LAUD. 70) 10) 


401 


Srorron 


XXXVIIT. 


Ἂς ΟΡ 


1Cor. xi.19. 


402 


CoNFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsuER. 








Ἄς ΟἹ 95, 022 


Luke xii. 
48. 


We must not judge what God requires of each for salvation. 


XXV.—How far this “one soul-saving faith” extends, 
A.C. tells me I have confessed it “ not a work for my pen ;” 
“but,” he says, “it is to be learned from that one, holy, 
Catholic, Apostolic, always visible, and infallible Roman 
Church, of which the Lady, once doubting, is now fully 
satisfied,” &c. Indeed, though A.C. sets this down with 
some scorn, which I can easily pass over, it is true that thus 
I said: “There is a latitude in faith, especially in reference 
to different men’s salvation; but to set a bound to this, and 
strictly to define it—Just thus far you must believe in every 
particular, or incur damnation—is no work for my pen.” ἢ 
Thus I said, and thus I say still; for though the foundation 
be one and the same in all, yet a “ latitude” there is, and 
a large one too, when you come to consider, not the founda- 
tion common to all, but things necessary to many particular 
men’s salvation.’ For “to whomsoever God hath given more, 
of him shall more be required,” as well in belief as in 
obedience and performance. And the gifts of God, both 
ordinary and extraordinary, to particular men are so various, 
as that for my part I hold it impossible for the ablest pen 
that is to express it. And in this respect I said it with 
humility and reason, That to set these bounds was no work 
for my pen.! Nor will I ever take upon me to express that 
tenet or opinion, the denial of the foundation only excepted, 
which may shut any Christian, the meanest, out of heaven. 
And, A.C., I believe you know very well to what a narrow 
scantling some learned of your own side bring the very 
foundation itself, rather than they will lose any that lay hold 


h Sect. xxxviii. No. 1. [vide supra, 


p. 361. ] 
i Sect. xxxviii. No. 8. [vide supra, 
p. 370.] 

* Unicuique secundum proportionem 
suam, secundum differentiam scientiz 
et ignorantiz, &.—Et postea : Exten- 
ditur doctrina hee, non solum ad 
donum scientiz, [sed ad quodcunque 
donum. |—Cajetan. in S. Lue. cap. xii. 
[48. a Thom. de Vio, Card. Caietan. 
Comment. &c. tom. iv. pp. 231, 
232.|—Ecce quod scientia aggravat 
culpam. Unde Gregorius: [Ubi do- 
num majoris scientize, ibi transgressor 
majori subjacet: culpze.]— [ Nicolai] 
Gorrani, [Ordin. Dominic.] in 8S. Lue. 
cap. xii. (48. In JY. Evangel. Com- 


ment. p. 673. col. 2. ed. Antverp. 
1617.] Therefore many things may 
be necessary for a knowing man’s 
salvation, which are not so for a poor 
ignorant soul. Si quis de antecesso- 
ribus nostris vel ignoranter, vel sim- 
pliciter non hoc observayit, et tenuit, 
quod nos Dominus facere exemplo et 
magisterio suo docuit, potest simpli- 
citati ejus de indulgentia Domini ve- 
nia concedi. Nobis vero non poterit 
ignosci, qui nune a Domino admoniti 
et instructi sumus, &e.—S. Cyprian. 
[Epist. Ixii. ad Ceecilium, olim] lib. 
ii. Epist. 3. [Op., p. 109.] 

! Sect. xxxviii. No. 1. [vide supra, 
p. 361.1 


The R. Church not exclusively the One—Holy—and Catholic. 403 


on Christ, the Son of God, and Redeemer of the world.”  Srcrion 
And as Christ epitomizes the whole law of obedience into en 
these two great commandments—the love of God and our Matt. xxii. 
neighbour; so the Apostle epitomizes the whole law of 3” 
belief into these two great assents: ‘ That God is; and that Heb. xi. 6. 
He is a rewarder of them that seek Him ;”’—that seek Him 

in Christ. And 5. Peter was full of the Holy Ghost when 

he expressed it, that “there is no salvation to them that seek Acts iv. 12. 
it in or by another name.” 

XXVI. But since this is no work for my pen, it seems 
A.C. will not say it is a work for his." But he tells us, “ It 
is to be learned of the one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic, always 
visible and infallible, Roman Church.” Titles enough given 
to the Roman Church; and I wish she deserved them all, for 
then we should have peace. But it is far otherwise. “One ” 
she is as a particular Church, but not “the one.” ‘ Holy” 
she would be counted; but the world may see, if it will not 
blind itself, of what value holiness is in that court and 
country. “Catholic” she is not, in any sense of the word, 
for she is not the universal,° and so not catholic in extent. 
Nor is she sound in doctrine, and in things which come 
near upon the foundation too; so not catholic in belief.? 


A.C. p. 72. 


™ [ΠΈΒΡΟΝΡΕΟ dicendum, quod ita se 
habent in doctrina fidei, | articuli fidei, 
sicut principia per se nota [in doc- 
trina, que per rationem naturalem 
habetur; in quibus principiis ordo 
quidam invenitur, ut queedam in aliis 
implicite contineantur: sicut omnia 
principia reducuntur ad hoe sicut ad 
primum, impossibile est simul affir- 
mare et negare...| Et similiter 
omnes articuli implicite continentur 
in aliquibus primis credibilibus, [sci- 
licet ut credatur Deus esse et provi- 
dentiam habere circa hominum salu- 
tem 7 secundum illud ad Hebr. xi. 
{Accedentem ad Deum ὅθ. In esse 
enim Divino includuntur omnia, que 
credimus in Deo eternaliter existere, 
&e.J]—S. Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] Se- 
eund, Secund. Q{uest.] 1. A[rtic.] 7. 
in Conclus.—In absoluto nobis ac fa- 
cili est zeternitas: Jesum et suscitatum 
a mortuis per Deum credere, et ipsum 
esse Dominum confiteri. [Nemoitaque 
ea, quee ob ignorationem nostram dicta 
sunt, ad occasionem irreligiositatis 
usurpet. |—S. Hilar. de Trinitate, lib. x. 
[ὃ 70.] in fin. [Op., col. 1080. E.] 


n And yet before in this Conference, 
etapud A.C. p. 42, the Jesuit, whom he 
defends, hath said it expressly, “ That 
all those points! are fundamental 
which are necessary to salvation.” 

° Romana ecclesia particularis.— 
Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 4. 
§ 1. [in tit. Op., tom. i. col. 811. D.J— 
Catholica autem est illa que diffusa 
est per universum orbem. [καθολικὴ 
μὲν οὖν καλεῖται, διὰ τοῦτο, κατὰ πᾶσης 
εἶναι τῆς οἰκουμένης, ἀπὸ περάτων γῆς 
ἕως περάτων. |—S. Cyril. Hierosolym. 
Cateches. xviii. [cap. 23. Op., p. 296. 
A 


P Catholica enim dicitur Ecclesia 
illa quee universaliter docet sine ullo 
defectu, vel differentia dogmatum. 
[καθολικὴ μὲν οὖν καλεῖται... καὶ διὰ 
τοῦτο, διδάσκειν καθολικῶς καὶ ἀνελλει- 
πῶς ἅπαντα τὰ εἰς γνῶσιν ἀνθρώπων 
ἐλθεῖν ὀφείλοντα δόγματα, περὶ τε ὅρα- 
τῶν, «.7.A.]—S. Cyril. Hierosolym. 
Cateches. xviii. [cap. 23. Op., p. 296. 
B.]— Unde Augustinus subscripsit 





1 [points ... carent Editt. 1673, and 
1686. 
DD 2 


404 


A passage of 5. Cyprian, alleged to prove Rome 


Coxrsrexce Nor is she the “prime mother Church” of Christianity ; 
Ρ 


WITH 
FISHER. 


Jerusalem was that,’ and so not catholic as a fountain or 
original, or as the head or root of the Catholic. 

XXVII. — And because many Romanists object here, 
though A.C. doth it not, that 8S. Cyprian called the Roman 
Church, “the root and matrix of the Catholic Church of 
Christ,’? I hope I shall have leave to explain that difficult 
place also. First, then, 8. Cyprian names not Rome. That 
stands only in the margin, and was placed there as his 
particular judgment led “him that set out S. Cyprian.” * 
Secondly, the true story of that epistle, and that which 
led S. Cyprian into this expression, was this: Cornclius, 
then chosen pope, expostulates with S. Cyprian, that his 
letters to Rome were directed only to the clergy there, and 


not to him; and takes it ill, 


se Episcopum ecclesiz catholicee 
Hipponeregiensis. — De Actis cum 
Felice Manicheeo, lib. i. cap. 20. [Op., 
tom. viii. col. 486. C.] — Et, [ibid.] 
lib. ii. cap. 1. [60]. 485. D.J]—Et, Ca- 
tholica Alexandrinorum. [Κωνσταντῖ- 
vos Σεβαστὸς, τῇ καθολικῇ ᾿Αλεξανδρέων 
ἐκκλησίᾳ χαίρετε, κ. τ. λ.] --- Socratis 
Histor. Ecclesiast. lib. i. cap. 9. [apud 
Kecles. Histor. Scriptor. ed. Reading. 
tom. ii. p. 80.]—Et,[...7@ λαῷ τῆς 
καθολικῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρέων ekkAnolas.— 
Ibid.] lib. ii. cap. 3. [p.81.] And so 
every particular Church is or may be 
called Catholic, and that truly, so long 
as it teaches Catholic doctrine. In 
which sense the particular Roman 
Church was called Catholic, so long 
as it taught all and only those things 
to be de fide, which the CatholicChurch 
itself maintained. But now Rome 
doth not so. 

4[ Vide} supra, Sect. xxxv. No. 9. [p. 
346.| OtherChurches beside the Roman 
are called matres and originales Eccle- 
sic, as in Tertullian. de preescript. He- 
reticorum, cap. xxi. [Op., p. 209. A. 
The passage is: Quid autem preedicave- 
rint, id est, quid illis Christus revela- 
verit, et hic prescribam non aliter 
probari debere, nisi per easdem_ eccle- 
sias, quas ipsi Apostoli condiderunt, 
ipsi eis preedicando, tam viva, quod 
aiunt, voce, quam per epistolas postea. 
Si heee ita sunt, constat proinde om- 
nem doctrinam, que cum illis Hecle- 
siis Apostolicis matricibus et origina- 
libus fidei conspiret, veritati deputan- 
dam, &c. |—Et, Eeclesize Hierosolymi- 
tanee, quee aliarum omnium mater, ἕο, 


as if S. Cyprian had thereby 


τῆς δέ γε μητρὸς [ἁπασῶν τῶν ἐκκλη- 
σιῶν τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, κ.τ. λ.]-- 
Theodoret. Ecclesiast. Hist. lib. v. 
cap. 9. ex libello Synodico a Concil. 
Constantinop. II. transmisso ad Con- 
cilium sub Damaso tum Rome coac- 
tum, [apud Eccles. Histor. Scriptor. 
ed. Reading. tom. iii. p. 207.|—Et, 
Constantinopolitana Ecclesia dicitur 
omnium aliarum caput.—Cod. [Justi- 
nian.| lib. i. tit. 2. [de sacrosanctis 
Ecclesiis, ] leg. 24. [ἡ ἐν Κωνσταντινου- 
πόλει ἐκκλησία πασῶν τῶν ἄλλων ἐστὶ 
κεφαλή.]--- Ταῦ is, not simply of all 
Churches, but of all in that patri- 
archate. And so Rome is the head 
of all in the Roman patriarchate. 

τ [Nos enim singulis navigantibus, 
ne cum scandalo ullo navigarent, 
rationem reddentes, scimts nos hor- 
tatos eos esse] ut ecclesize Catholicz 
radicem et matricem agnoscerent ac 
tenerent.—S. Cyprian. { Epist. xlv. ad 
Cornelium, olim] lib. iv. Epist. 8. 
[Op., p. 59. ] 

s Ed. Basil. 1580 And Simaneas 
also applies this speech of S. Cyprian 
to Rome: [Cyprianus quoque.... 
lib. iv. fatetur, Ecclesiam Romanam 
esse matricem et radicem ecclesiz 
Catholicee. — De Catholic. Institut. ] 
Tit. xxiv. § 17.,[p. 171.) —And 
so also Pamelius upon this place of 
S. Cyprian. [Romanam LEcclesiam 
haud dubie intelligit, quam digno 
elogio ecclesize catholicee radicem et 
matricem dicit, &e.—Annot. Pamelii 
in loc. Op., p. 86. ed. Paris. 1616.] 
But they wrong him. 


“ the root and mother of the Catholic Church,” explained. 


seemed to disapprove his election. S. Cyprian replies, That 
by reason of the schism moved then by Novatian, it was 
uncertain, in Africa, which of the two had the more 
“canonical right to the see of Rome;” and that therefore 
he named him not; but yet, that during this uncertainty, 
he exhorted all that sailed thither, wt Ecclesie Catholice 
radicem et matricem agnoscerent et tenerent, “that in all 
their carriage they should acknowledge, and so hold them- 
selves unto, the unity of the Catholic Church, which is the 
root and matrix of it,” and the only way to avoid participa- 
tion in the schism. And that this must be S. Cyprian’s 
meaning, I shall thus prove: First, Because this could not 
be his meaning or intention, “ That the see of Rome was the 
root or matrix of the Catholic Church :” for if he had told 
them so, he had left them in as great or greater difficulty 
than he found them. For there was then an open and an 
apparent schism in the Church of Rome; two bishops, 
Cornelius and Novatian ; two congregations, which re- 
spectively attended and observed them. So that a perplexed 
question must needs have divided their thoughts, Which of 
these two had been that root and matrix of the Catholic 
Church. Therefore, had S. Cyprian meant to pronounce 
Rome the root and matrix of the Catholic Church, he would 
never have done it at such a time, when Rome itself was in 
schism. Whereas, in the other sense, the counsel is good 
and plain; namely, That they should hold themselves to the 
“unity and communion of the Catholic Church,” which is 
the root of it. And then necessarily they were to suspend 
their communion there, till they saw how the Catholic 
Church did incline, to approve or disapprove the election of 
the one or the other. And thus S. Cyprian frees himself to 
Cornelius from the very least tonch of schism. Secondly, 
Because this sense comes home to Baronius.' For he 


‘ [Inter hee autem accidit, ut 
audita Carthagine electione Cornelii, 
obortoque in eum schismate, quod ea 


ciliarent, si possent: si non possent, 
cujusnam essent potiora jura, in 
Africam scriberent ; ut communi- 


de re anceps esset multorum sen- 
tentia, et a cujus partibus starent, 
nutarent permulti: ad dimovendam 
omnem a trepidantium animis dubi- 
tationem, visum est Cypriano, atque 
collegis ejus nonnullis in unum 
cocuntibus, episcopos duos legatos 
Romam mittere, qui dissidentes con- 


cationem, quam interea suspenderant, 
cuinam impertituri forent, cunctis 
liquido innotesceret. Hee itaque de 
missa legatione, idem Cyprianus ad 
Cornelium seribens, testatur his ver- 
bis: (Epist. xly.) Cum statuissemus, 
&c.|—Baron. Annal. eclivy. No. 64, 
where he cites this epistle. 


405 


Srctron 


XXXVITI. 


406 


The true sense of the passage, and of the case of 


Conrerence affirms, That S. Cyprian and his colleagues, the African 


WITH 
FIsHeEr. 


bishops, did communionem suspendere, “ suspend their com- 
munion,” until they heard, by Caldonius and Fortunatus, 
whose the undoubted right was. So, it seems, S. Cyprian 
gave that counsel to these travellers, which himself followed. 
For if Rome, during the schism, and in so great uncertainty, 
had yet been radix LEcclesie Catholice, “root of the 
Catholic Church of Christ,’ I would fain know how 5. 
Cyprian, so great and famous an asserter of the Church’s 
unity, durst once so much as think of “suspending com- 
munion with her.” Thirdly, Because this sense will be plain 
also by other passages out of other epistles of S. Cyprian. 
For, writing to Jubaianus, an African bishop, against the 
Novatians, who then infested those parts, and durst re- 
baptize Catholic Christians,—he saith thus: “But we who 
hold the head and root of one Church, do know for certain, 
and believe, that nothing of this is lawful out of the Catholic 
Church; and that of baptism, which is but one, we are the 
head, where he himself was at first baptized, when he held the 
ground and verity of Divine Unity.”" Now, I conceive it is 
all one, or at least as argumentative to all purposes, to be 
caput or radix baptismatis, “head” or “root of baptism,’ as 
head or root of the Church. For there is but one baptism, 
as well as but one Church, and that is the entrance into 
this. And S. Cyprian affirms, and includes himself, nos 
esse caput, “that we are the head of baptism.” Where yet, 
I pray observe it, he cannot by nos, “we,” mean his own 
person, though, if he did, he were the more opposite to Rome ; 
much less can he mean the Roman Church, as it is a 
particular, and stands separate from others. For then how 
could he say, nos esse caput, “that we are the head?” 
Therefore he must needs mean the unity and society of the 


“ Nos autem, qui ecclesiz unius 
caput et radicem tenemus, pro certo 
scimus, et fidimus, nihil [illic] extra 
Ecclesiam licere, et baptismatis, quod 
est unum, caput nos esse, ubi et ipse 
baptizatus prius fuerat, quando divine 
unitatis, et rationem et veritatem 
tenebat.—S. Cyprian. Epist. lxxiii. ad 
Jubaianum, { Ρ.1 82. 60]. 2.164 Pamelii, 
[Paris. 1616. In the Benedictine 
edition, (p. 130.) this passage is: 


Nos autem. ... nihil illi extra eccle- 
siam licere, et baptisma, quod est 
unum, apud nos esse, ubi, &c.— 
Pamelius observes that the passage is 
obscure. §. Augustine in one place, 
contra Cresconium, lib. ii. cap. 338. 
(Op, tom. ix. p. 431. A.), seems to 
doubt the authenticity of the epistle; 
but in other places he admits that it 
is S. Cyprian’s. Cf. the note by the 
Benedictine editor, p. 499. ] 


Novatian to which it refers, explained. 407 


Church Catholic, which the Novatians had then left, and  Srcroy 
whereof he and his Church were still members. Besides, ***YU™ 
most manifest it is, that he calls that Church caput bap- 
tismatis, “the head of baptism,’ where Novatian was 
baptized ; (they are his own words ;) and probable it is that 
was Rome, because that schismatic was a Roman priest. 
And yet for all this S. Cyprian says, nos esse caput bap- 
tismatis, “ that we are the head of baptism,” though he were 
at Carthage. By which it is plain, that as caput is parallel 
to radix and matrix ; so also that by caput, “the head” of 
baptism, he includes together with Rome all the other mem- 
bers of the Church universal. Again, 8S. Cyprian writes to 
Cornelius, and censures the schismatical carriage of the 
Novatians at Rome; and tells him farther, that he had sent 
Caldonius and Fortunatus “ to labour peace in that Church, 
that so they might be reduced to and composed in the unity 
of the Catholic Church. But, because the obstinate and 
inflexible pertinacy of the other party had not only refused 
radicis et matris sinum, ‘the bosom of their mother and 
embracings of their root,’ but the schism increasing and 
growing raw to the worse, hath set up a bishop to itself,” &c.* 
Where it is observable, and I think plain, that 8. Cyprian 
employed his legates, not to bring the Catholic Church to the 
communion of Rome, but Rome to the Catholic Church ; 
or to bring the Novatians not only to communicate with 
Cornelius, but with the Church universal; which was there- 
fore “ head and root,” in 8. Cyprian’s judgment, even to Rome 
itself, as well as to all other great, ancient, or even Apostoli- 
cal, Churches. And this is yet more plain by the sequel. 
For when those his legates had laboured to bring those 
schismatics to the unity of the Catholic Church, yet he 
complains their labour was lost. And why? Why, because 


x [Miseramus nuper collegas nos- 
tros Caldonium et Fortunatum ut 
non tantum persuasione literarum 
nostrarum, sed presentia sua et con- 
silio omnium vestrum eniterentur 
quantum possent et] elaborarent, ut 
ad catholice ecclesize unitatem scissi 
corporis membra componerent, et 
Christiane caritatis vineulo copu- 
larent. Sed quoniam diverse partis 
obstinata et inflexibilis pertinacia non 
tantum radicis et matris sinum atque 


complexum recusavit, sed etiam glis- 
cente et in pejus recrudescente dis- 
cordia, episcopum sibi constituit, [et 
contra sacramentum semel traditum 
divine dispositionis et catholics 
unitatis adulterum et contrarium 
caput extra ecclesiam fecit, acceptis 
literis tam tuis, quam collegarum, &c. | 
—S. Cyprian. [Epist. xlii. ad Cor- 
nelium, olim] lib. ii. Epist. 10. [Op., 
p. 56. ] 


408 That the unity of Ch.Cath.,not the Roman See, was the “root & mother” 


Conrrrence recusabant radicis et matris sinum, ‘they refused the bosom 


WIth 
FISHER. 


of the root and the mother.’ Therefore it must needs be, 
that, im §. Cyprian’s sense, these two, unitas Catholice 
Ecclesia, “the wnity of the Catholic Church,” and radicis 
or matricis sinus or complexus, the “bosom” or “ embracing 
of the root ” or the “ mother,” are all one. And then radix 
and matrix are not words by which he expresses the Roman 
see in particular, but he denotes by them the “ unity of the 
Church Catholic.” Fourthly, Because Tertullian Y seems to 
me to agree in the same sense: for, saith he, “these so 
many and great Churches founded by the Apostles,” taken 
all of them together, “ are that one Church from the 
Apostles, out of which are all. So all are first, and all 
apostolic, while they all allow and prove wnam unitatem, 
‘one unity.’”? Nor can any possibly understand this of any 
particular Church, but subordinately. As 8. Gregory Nazi- 
anzen says, the Church of Czesarea was mater, “ the mother, 
of almost all Churches ; 2. which must needs be understood 
of some neighbouring churches, not of the whole Catholic 
Church. And where Pamelius speaks* of “origimal” and 
“mother” Churches, he names six, “ and others,” and Rome 


in the last place. 


y [Itaque] tot ac tante ecclesia, 
una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex 
qua omnes. Sic omnes prime, et 
omnes Apostolicae, dum unam omnes 
probant unitatem. — Tertullian. de 
preescript. advers. Heer. cap. xx. [The 
last clause in this passage is in 
Rigalt’s edition: Sic omnes prima, 
et Apostolicze, dum una omnes pro- 
bant unitatem.—Op., p. 209. A.J— 
[- - - Apostolos primum institutis per 
Judeam ecclesiis, in orbem deinde 
profectos, apud unamquamque οἷν]- 
tatem ecclesias condidisse, que vocatee 
sint Apostolicae, a quibus ceeteree 
mutuo sumpserint doctrinam.]| Porro 
unam esse primam Apostolicam, 
a qua relique. Hane nulli loco 
affigit.—B[eatus] Rhenanus, Annotat. 
in Argument. [preefix.] Tertullian. 
lib. de preescriptione [Heeret. Op., 
p. 67. Ὁ. ed. De la Barre, Paris 1582.] 
Nulli loco; therefore not at Rome. 
But these words, ‘‘ Hane nulli loco 
affigit,” deleantur, says the Spanish 
inguisition upon Khenanus, printed 
at Madrid, an. 1584. [Repeated also 


Therefore 


certainly no particular Church 


in the Index Expurgatorius of Madrid, 
ed. 1667. p. 94. col. 1. ] 

z §. Gregory Nazianzen says the 
Church of Ceesarea was mater prope 
omnium LEcclesiarum. — [S. Gregor. 
Nazianzen.| Epist. xviii. [nune xli. al. 
xxii ad Cesarienses. Op.,tom. ii. p. 36. 
A. πάσης μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησίας φροντιστέον, 
ὡς Χριστοῦ σώματος, μάλιστα δὲ τῆς 
ὑμετέρας, ἣ μητὴρ σχεδὸν ἁπάντων τῶν 
ἐκκλησιῶν ἣν τε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, καὶ νῦν ἐστι, 
καὶ νομίζεται, καὶ πρὸς ἣν τὸ κοινὸν 
βλέπει, ὡς κέντρῳ κύκλος περιγραφύ- 
μενος, K.T.A. | 

ἃ [Quod hue autem solum pertineat, 
Ecclesie matrices fidei vocantur, unde 
fides Christi primum venit ad nos: 
et originales fidei, a quibus diffusa 
per orbem fides originem sumpsit. 
Exemplaria verze fidei scilicet, ut 
fuit Hierosolymitana, Antiochena, 
Corinthia, Philippensis, Ephesina, 

tomana, et alize. |—Pamel. { Annotat. | 

in Tertullian. lib. de preescript. ad- 
versus Heereticos, cap. xxi. No. 129. 
fapud Op., Tertullian. p. 254. col. 1. 
C. ed. Colon. 1617. ] 


of particular Churches, shown from S. Cyprian, and other Fathers. 


can be the root or matrix of the Catholic; but she is rooted 
in her own unity, down from the Apostles, and no where else 
extra Deum. And this is farther manifest by the irreligious 
act of the Emperor Adrian ; for he, intending to root out the 
faith of Christ, took this course: he consecrated simulacrum 
Jovis, “the image of Jupiter,” m the very place where Christ 
suffered ; and profaned Bethlehem with the temple of 
Adonis—“to this end, that the root, as it were, and the 
foundation of the Church might be taken away, if in those 
places idols might be worshipped in which Christ Himself was 
born, and suffered,” > &c. By which it is most evident, 
that either Jerusalem was the root of the Catholic Church, 
if any particular Church were so; or rather, that Adrian was 
deceived, as being an heathen he well might, in that he 
thought the Universal Church had any particular or local 
root of its being; or that he could destroy it all, by laying it 
waste in any one place whatsoever. And 8. Augustine, I think, 
is full for this, That the Catholic Church must have a 
Catholic “ root,” or “ matrix,” too. For he tells us, “ That 
all heresies whatsoever went out de illa, ‘out of the Catholic 
Church.’ For de ila, there, can be out of no other ; for “ all 
heresies ” did not go out of any one particular Church. He 
goes on: “ They were cut off de vite, ‘from this Catholic 
vine’ still, as unprofitable branches; ipsa autem, ‘but this’ 
Catholic Church remains in radice sua, ‘in its own root,’ in 
its own vine, in its own charity,” which must needs be as 
ample and as catholic as itself; or else, were it any particular, 
“all heretical branches”? could not be cut off from one 
“root.” And δ΄. Augustine says again, “That the Dona- 
tists did not consider that they were cut off from the root of 
the Eastern Churches :’¢ where you see again it is still but 


+ | Nam Hadrianus Imperator existi- 
mans se fidem Christianam loci in- 
juria peremturum, in loco passionis 
simulacrum Jovis consecravit : et 
Bethlehem Adonidis fano profanata 
est:] ut quasi radix et fundamentum 
Ececlesize tolleretur, si in 115 locisidola 
colerentur, in quibus Christus natus 
est [ut pateretur, passus est ub resur- 
geret, surrexit ut regnaret, judicatus 
ut judicaret.] — 8. Paulinus, Epist. 
(xi. ad Severum,) [xxxi. § 3. Op., 
tom. i. p. 194.] 


ὁ Teereses omnes de illa exierunt, 
tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vite 
precisa: ipsa autem manet in radice 
sua, [in vite sua, in caritate sua.|— 
8. Augustin. de Symbolo ad Catechu- 
menos, lib. i. cap. 6. [Op., tom. vi. 
col. 554. .] 

4 Pars [autem] Donati [in solis 
Africis calumniatur orbi terrarum, et] 
non considerat [ea sterilitate, qua 
fructus pacis et caritatis noluit 
afferre,] ab illa radice orientalium 
ecclesiarum se esse preecisam, [unde 


409 


Srcrion 


XXX VIII. 


410 


The Church Catholic the “ root and mother” of the Roman. 


Conrerence “ one root” of many Churches; and that if any man will 


WITH 
Fisumr. 


have a “particular root” of the Catholic Church, he must 
have it in the East, not in the West at Rome. And now, 
lastly, besides this out of S. Cyprian, to prove his own 
meaning—and sure he is the best interpreter of himself,— 
and other assisting proofs, it is most evident that in the 
prime and principal sense, the Catholic Church and her 
unity is the “ head, root, or matrix” of Rome, and all other 
particular Churches, and not Rome, or any other particular, 
the head, root, or matrix of it. For there is a double root 
of the Church, as there is of all things else: that is, radix 
essentiea, the “ root, head, or matrix of its essence ;” and 
this is the prime sense; for essence and being is first in 
all things: and then there is radix existentie, “ the root of 
its existence”? and formal being ; which always presupposes 
being, and is therefore a sense less principal. Now to apply 
this. The Catholic or Universal Church is, and must needs 
be, the root of essence and being to Rome, and all other 
particulars ; and this is the principal root, head, or matrix, 
that gives being: and Rome, but with all other particular 
Churches, and no more than other patriarchal Churches, was 
and is radix existentie, the “root of the Church’s existence.” 
And this agrees with that known and received rule in art, 
“That universals give essence to their particulars, and 
particulars supply their universals with existence.” For as 
Socrates, and every particular man, borrow their essence 
from the species and definition of a man, which is universal ; 
but this universal nature and being of man hath no actual 
existence but in Socrates and all other particular men; so 
the Church of Rome, and every other particular Church in 
the world, receive their very essence and being of a church 
from the definition of the Catholic Universal Church of 
Christ ; but this universal nature and being of the Church 
hath no actual existence but in Rome and all other par- 
ticular Churches, and equal existence in all her particulars. 
And should all the particular Churches in the world fall 
away from Christ, save only one,—which God forbid !—yet 
the nature, essence, and being of the Universal Church 


evangelium in Africam venit.]—S. olim] elxx. § 2. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
Augustin. Epist. [lii. ad Severinum, 119. B.] 


The Roman Church Apostolic—but not the “ only Apostolic.’ 411 


would both exist and subsist in that one particular. Out of — Sxcrron 
all which to me most clear it is, That for the Church’s being, pint 
the Catholic Church, and that in unity, (for ens and unum, 
“being,” and “being one,” are convertible,) is radix, the “root, 

head, matrix, fountain, or original,” call it what you will, of 

Rome, and all other particular Churches; but Rome is’ no ' [is.... 
more than other Churches the root or matrix of the adel 1673, 
Catholic Church’s existence, or place of her actual residence : and 1686.] 
and this I say for her existence only, not the purity or 

form of her existence, which is not here considered. But if 

the Catholic she be not, nor the “ root” of the Catholic 

Church, yet “ Apostolic” I hope she is. Indeed, Apostolic she 

is, as being the see of one, and he a prime, Apostle : but 

then not Apostolic, as the Church is called in the Creed, from 


all the Apostles—no, nor the “ only Apostolic.” ὦ 


© Not as Bellarmine would have it, 
with a Hine dicitur Apostolica, quia 
in ea successio episcoporum ab apo- 
stolis deducta est usque ad nos.— 
Bellarmin. de Notis Heel. lib. iv. cap. 8. 
§ 1. (Op., tom. ii. col. 178. D.] For, 
by this reason, neither Jerusalem nor 
Antioch were in their times Apostolic 
Churches ; because succession of 
bishops hath not succeeded in them 
to this day. [Neque enim de pres- 
byteris, aut diaconis, aut inferioris 
ordinis clericis, sed] de collegis age- 
batur, qui possent [aliorum collega- 
rum 1 judicio, [presertim] apostolica- 
rum ecclesiarum, causam suam inte- 
gram reservare.—S. Augustin. Epist. 
[xliii. ad Glorium et Eleusium, olim] 
elxii. [§ 7. Op., tom. ii. col. 91. F.] 
—Johann, de Turrecremata enumerat 
sex verbi hujus significationes. Qua- 
rum prima est apostolica ; dicitur 
quia in apostolis, ὅσ. initiata est. 
Hos enim instituit quasi fundamen- 
tum ecclesie, &c.—Johann. de Tur- 
recremat. Summ. de Eccles. lib. i. 
cap. 18.—Et quia originem sumpsit 
ab apostolis, &¢.—ibid.—Ubi dicit 
etiam §. Patres apposuisse hance 
vocem (apostolicam) in symbolo suo, 
supra symbolum apostolorum. —ibid. 
[The whole passage is: Apposuerunt 
autem sancti patres in symbolo suo 
supra symbolum apostolorum, quod 
ecclesia esset apostolica: et hoe pro- 
fecto, ut dicit Albertus Magnus, ad 
ostensionem auctoritatis et antiqui- 
tatis ecclesia ..... Dicitur autem 
ecclesia apostolica ratione multiplici. 


Visible,” 


Tum primo: quia in apostolis, qui 
fuerunt primi qui adheserunt Christo 

. ecclesia initiata est: et sui esse 
secundum tempus gratiz revelata sus- 
cepit originem... Primum apostolos 
elegit, quos quasi fundamenta ecclesize 
instituit, quorum preedicatione de 
eadem plebe multi ad eum conversi 
in se ipsis originem ecclesiz preestite- 
runt. | 

f [Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum 
suarum: evolvant ordinem episcopo- 
rum suorum, ita per successiones ab 
initio decurrentem, ut primus 1116 
episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, vel 
apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum 
Apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit 
auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim 
modo] Ecclesiz Apostoliczee [census 
suos deferunt: sicjut Smyrnzeorum 
[ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne con- 
locatum refert: sicut Romanorum, 
Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem: 
proinde utique et [czteree exhibent 
quos ab Apostolis in episcopatum 
constitutos [Apostolici seminis tra- 
duces habeant.|—Tertullian. de pre- 
script. advers. Heereticos, cap. xxxii. 
(Op., p. 213. B.]—[Age jam qui voles 
curiositatem melius exercere in 
negotio salutis tuz,] percurre Ke- 
clesias Apostolicas, [apud quas ipse 
adhue cathedre apostolorum suis locis 
president ..... Proxima est tibi 
Achaia ?] habes Corinthum, [Si non 
longa es a Macedonia, habes] Philip- 
pos, [habes] Thessalonicenses. [Si potes 
in Asiam tendere, habes] Ephesum. 
[Si autem Italiz adjaces, habes] 


412 TheCh.cannot decide of themeasure of belief required in each individual. 


Coyrerencs 1 may not deny, God hath hitherto preserved her, but for a 


WIT 
FISHER. 


1 fit, and 
TN A656 
male Vdit. 
1639. ] 


better end, doubtless, than they turn it to. But “infallible” 
she was never. Yet if that Lady did, as the Jesuit in his 
close avows, or others will, rest satisfied with it, who can help 
it? Sure, none but God. And, by A. C.’s leave, this, which 
I said is no work for my pen, cannot be learned—no, not of 
the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, much less of 
the Roman. For though the foundation be one and the 
same, and sufficiently known by Scripture and the Creeds, 
yet for the building upon the foundation, the adding to it, 
the detracting from it, the joining other things with it, the 
erating upon it, each’ of these may be damnable to some, 
and not to others, according to the knowledge, wisdom, 
means of information, which some have and others want; 
and according to the ignorance, simplicity, and want of infor- 
mation, which some others have, and cannot help; and 
according to the negligence, contempt, wilfulness, and malice, 
with obstinacy, which some have against the known truth ; 
and all or some of these in different degrees in every parti- 
cular man: and that in the whole latitude of mankind, 
from the most wise and learned in the school of Christ, to 
the simplest idiot, that hath been so happy as to be initiated 
into the faith by baptism. Now, the Church hath not this 
knowledge of all particulars, men, and conditions, nor can 
she apply the conditions to the men; and therefore cannot 
teach just how far every man must believe, as it relates to 
the possibility or impossibility of his salvation, in every parti- 
cular. And that which the Church cannot teach, men cannot 
learn of her. She can teach the foundation, and men were 
happy if they would learn it, and the Church more happy 
would she teach nothing but that, as necessary to salvation ; 
for certainly nothing but that is necessary. Now then, 
whereas, after all this, the Jesuit tells us that 


tomam, [unde nobis quoque aucto- eandem doctrinam ejusdem  fidei 


ritas presto est.]—ibid. cap. xxxvi. 
{p. 215. A.J—Et Pamelius enumerat 
Hierosolymitanam, Antiochenam, Co- 
rinthiam, Philippensem, Ephesinam, 
Romanam.—Pamel. ibid. cap. xxi. 
No. 129. [ubisup. p. 408. note *.] And 
it may be observed, that so long ago 
Tertullian, and so lately Pamelius, 
should reckon Rome last. [. . . dchine 
in orbem  profecti, (sc. Apostoli) 


nationibus promulgaverunt, et pro- 
inde ecclesias apud unamquamque 
civitatem condiderunt, a quibus tra- 
ducem fidei et semina doctrine, | 
ceeteree [exinde] ecclesiz [mutuatee 
sunt, et quotidie mutuantur ut eccle- 
siz fiant: ac] per hoe et ips Apo- 
stolicaee deputantur, ut soboles Apo- 
stolicarum Hcclesiarum.—Tertullian. 
ibid. cap. xx. [p. 208. D.] 


“ΡΥ - 


A.C.’s statement about the Lady for whom the Conference was held. 418 


J. Upon this and the precedent Conferences,' the lady 
rested in judgment fully satisfied [in her judgment, | 
as she told a confident’ friend, of the truth of the 
Roman Church’s faith. Yet upon frailty, and fear to 


offend the King, she yielded to go to church ;* for | 


which she was after very sorry, as some of her friends 
can testify. 


* [The Chaplain upon this last clause saith, that he is sure she will be better 
able to answer for her coming to Church, than for her leaving the Church of 
England, and following the superstitions and errors of the Church of Rome. 
But he neither proveth, nor can prove, that it is lawful for one, persuaded 
especially as the lady is, to go to the Protestant Church, which were to halt 
on both sides, to serve two masters, to dissemble with God and the world, to 
profess outwardly a religion in conscience known to be false; neither doth he, 
nor can he, prove any superstition or error to be in Roman religion, but by 
presuming with intolerable pride to make himself, or some of his fellows, 
judge of controversies, and by taking authority to censure all to be superstition 
and error, which suiteth not with his fancy, although it be generally held or 
practised by the Universal Church; which, in 8. Augustine’s judgment, is 
“most insolent madness.” 

I beseech sweet Jesus to give grace to every one that offendeth in this sort, 
to see, repent, and get pardon of their faults past, and light of true faith in 
time to come; for obtaining whereof they had need to pray to God for it, and 
with a great desire to seek after it, and with humility to submit their will 
and judgment to those whom God hath appointed to teach it; to wit, such 
doctors and pastors as, by a visible continual succession, have without change 
brought it from Christ and His Apostles, even until these our days, and shall 
by a like succession carry it along even until the end of the world. The 
which succession not being found in any other Church differing in doctrine 
from the Roman Church, I wish the Chaplain and his lord, and every other 
man, carefully to consider, whether it be not more Christian, and less brain-sick, 
to think that the Pope, being S. Peter’s successor, with a General Council, 
should be judge of controversies, and that the pastoral judgment of him, upon 
whom as upon a firm rock Christ did build His Church, (Ephes. iv. 11.) and for 
whose faith Christ prayed, (Matth. xvi. 18.) enjoining him to confirm his 
brethren, (Luke xxii. 32.) and to whose care and government Christ committed 
His whole flock of lambs and sheep, (John xxi. 15—17.) should be accounted 
infallible, rather than to make every man that can read Scripture, interpreter 
of Scriptures, decider of controversies, controller of General Councils, and 
judge of his judges; or to have no judge of controversies of faith, to permit 
every man to believe as he list—as if there were no infallible certainty of faith 
to be expected on earth; the which were to induce, instead of “one saving 
faith,” a Babylonical confusion of so many faiths as fantasies, or no true 
Christian faith at all. From which evils, sweet Jesus, deliver us. Amen.— 
Finis.— A. C. marg. note to p. 73. ] 


%. I.—This is all personal. And how that honourable 
Lady was then settled “in conscience,” how “ in judgment,” 
I know not. This, I think, is made clear enough, That that 
which you said in this and the precedent Conferences could 
settle neither, unless in some that were settled or settling 
before. As little do I know what she “told any confident 
friend”’ of her approving the Roman cause ; no more whether 


SECTION 
XXXIX. 


[A.C. p.72.] 


x [ Confer- 


ence.... 


A. ("ἢ 
?| confident 
.ς caret 


Os 


§ 39. 


414 


In what sense the Lady might more properly communicate 


Conrrrence it were “frailty” or “fear,” or other motive, that made her 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


A.C. p. 73. 


yield to go to church; nor how sorry she was for it, nor who 
can testify that sorrow. This 1 amsure of: if she repent, and 
God forgive her other sins, she will more easily be able to 
answer for her “ coming to church,” than for her “ leaving 
of the Church of England,” and following the superstitions 
and errors which the Roman Church hath added in point of 
faith and the worship of God. For the lady was then living, 
when I answered thus, 

II.—Now, whereas I said the Lady would far more easily 
be able to answer for her coming to church than for her 
leaving the Church of England: to this A.C. excepts, and 
says, “that I neither prove, nor can prove, that it is lawful 
for one, persuaded especially as the Lady was, to go to the 
Protestant church.” There is a great deal of cunning, and 
as much malice, in this passage, but I shall easily pluck the 
sting out of the tail of this wasp. And, first, I have proved 
it already, through this whole discourse, and therefore can 
prove it, that the Church of England is an orthodox Church ; 
and therefore with the same labour it is proved that men 
may lawfully go unto it, and communicate with it—for so 
a man not only may but ought to do with an orthodox 
Church: and a Romanist may communicate with the Church 
of England without any offence in the nature of the thing 
thereby incurred; but if his conscience, through misinfor- 
mation, check at it, he should do well in that case rather to 
inform his conscience, than forsake any orthodox Church 
whatsoever. Secondly, A.C. tells me plainly, “ that I cannot 
prove, that a man, so persuaded as the Lady was, may go to 
the Protestant church ;” that is, that a Roman Catholic may 
not go to the Protestant church. Why, I never went about 
to prove that a Roman Catholic, being and continuing such, 
might, against his conscience, go to the Protestant church ; 
for these words, ‘a man persuaded as the Lady is,” are 
A.C.’s words, they are not mine. Mine are not simply that 
the Lady might, or that she might not; but comparative 
they are: “That she might more easily answer to God for 
coming to, than for going from, the Church of England.” 
And that is every way most true: for in this doubtful time 
of hers, when, upon my reasons given, she went again to 


with the Anglican Church, than with the R. C. Church. 


church ; when yet soon after, as you say at least, she was 
sorry for it;—I say, at this time she was in heart and reso- 
lution a Roman Catholic, or she was not: if she were not, 
as it seems by her doubting she was not then fully resolved, 
then my speech is most true, that she might more easily 
answer God for coming to service in the Church of England 
than for leaving it; for a Protestant she had been, and, for 
aught I knew, at the end of this Conference so she was; and 
then it was no sin in itself to come to an orthodox Church, 
nor no sin against her conscience, she continuing a Protestant, 
for aught which then appeared to me :—but if she then were 
a Roman Catholic, as the Jesuit and A. C. seem confident 
she was, yet my speech is true too ; for then she might more 


415 


SroTIon 


XXXIX. 


easily answer to’ God for coming to the Church of England, 1 [to... 


which is orthodox, and leaving the Church of Rome, which 
is superstitious, than, by leaving the Church of England, 
communicate with all the superstitions of Rome. Now, the 
cunning and the malignity of A.C. lies in this: he would fain 
have the world think that I am so indifferent in religion as 
that I did maintain, the Lady, being conscientiously per- 
suaded of the truth of the Romish doctrine, might yet, against 
both her conscience, and against open and avowed profession, 
come to the Protestant church. 

I1I.—Nevertheless, in hope his cunning malice would not 
be discovered, against this,—his own sense, that is, and not 
mine,—he brings divers reasons. As, first, It is not lawful 
for one affected as that lady was—that is, for one that is re- 
solved of the truth of the Roman Church—to go to the Church 
of England, there and in that manner to serve and worship 


caret Edit. 
1639. | 


God; “ because,” saith A.C., “that were to halt on both A.C. p.73 


sides, to serve two masters, and to dissemble with God and 
the world.” Truly, I say the same thing with him; and 
that therefore neither may a Protestant, that is resolved in 
conscience that the profession of the true faith is im the 
Church of England, go to the Romish church, there and in 
that manner to serve and worship God. Neither need I give 
other answer, because A. C. urges this against his own fiction, 
not my assertion. Yet, since he will so do, I shall give a 
particular answer to each of them. And to this first reason 
of his I say thus : That to believe religion after one sort, and 


416 SomeJesuits haverecommended outward compliance withState religion. 


Coxrerence to practise it after another, and that in the main points of 


WITH 
FIsHER. 


AU Cp 19. 


Rom. x. 10. 


worship, the Sacrament and Invocation, is to halt on both 
sides, to serve two masters, and to dissemble with God and 
the world. And other than this I never taught, nor ever 
said that which might infer the contrary. But, A.C., give 
me leave to tell you, your fellow-Jesuit Azorius® affirms this 
in express terms. And what do you think, can he prove it ? 
Nay, not Azorius only, but other priests and Jesuits here in 
England, either teach some of their proselytes, or else some 
of them learn it without teaching, that though they be per- 
suaded as this lady was—that is, thongh they be Roman 
Catholics—yet, either to gain honour or save their purse, they 
may go to the Protestant Church, just as the Jesuit here 
says “the Lady did, out of frailty, and fear to offend the 
King.” Therefore I pray, A. C., if this be gross dissimulation 
both with God and the world, speak to your fellows to leave 
persuading or practising of it, and leave men in the profes- 
sion of religion to be as they seem, or to seem and appear as 
they are; let us have no mask worn here. <A. C.’s second 
reason why one so persuaded as that Lady was might not 
go to the Protestant Church, is, “ because that were out- 
wardly to profess a religion in conscience known to be false.” 
To this I answer, first, That if this reason be true, it concerns 
all men, as well as those that be persuaded as the Lady was. 
For no man may outwardly profess a religion in conscience 
known to be false; “for with the heart man believeth to 


5. Quinto queeritur, An ubi Catholici 
una cum hereticis versantur, licitum 
sit Catholico adire templa, ad que 
heeretici conveniunt, eorum interesse 
conventibus, [atque concionibus?] 
tespondeo : Si rei naturam spectemus, 
id non esse per se malum, cum sit res 
suapte natura indifferens, &c.—Et 
postea: Si princeps heeresi laboret, et 
jubeat cives, tum Catholicos, tum 
heereticos templa adire, atque etiam 
frequentare, in quibus publici heereti- 
corum conventus celebrantur, et con- 
ciones habentur, et id imperat prin- 
ceps constituta poena publicationis 
bonorum, vel mortis? Respondeo: Si 
id princeps jubeat, quoniam vult, ut 
suo mandato omnes obediant, id esse 
licitum Catholicis facere : nam in eo 
solum obedientiz officium principi 
debitum preestant. Si tamen id pre- 


cipiat, ut eo tanquam religionis sym- 
bolo pravitatem heereticam simul pro- 
fiteantur, et ut Catholici discernantur 
ab heereticis, nequaquam esse licitum 
parere his principis jussis; quoniam 
ceteri proculdubio Catholici offende- 
rentur : deinde eo ipso tacite hereti- 
cam perfidiam, seu pravitatem profite- 
rentur. Queres, an tune liceat Catho- 
lico suo principi obedire, publice asse- 
verendo se id solum efficere, ut suo 
principi pareat, non autem ut sectam 
heereticam profiteatur? Quidam id 
licere arbitrantur, ne ejus bona publi- 
centur, et ne ei vita auferatur: quod 
sane probabiliter dici videtur.— [R. 
P. Joannis] Azorii, [ Lorcitani, 8. J.] 
Institutiones Morales, par. 1. lib. viii. 
cap. 27. p. 1299. ed. Paris.1616. [p. 574. 
col. 1. ed. Colon. 1613. ] 


The Roman religion (so called) is corrupted. 


righteousness, and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation.” 
Now, to his own salvation no man can confess a known false 
religion. Secondly, If the religion of the Protestants be in 
conscience a known false religion, then the Romanists’ reli- 
gion is so too, for their religion is the same ; nor do the 
Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different 
religion, for the Christian religion is the same to both ; but 
they differ in the same religion, and the difference is in 
certain gross corruptions, to the very endangering of salva- 
tion—which each side says the other is guilty of. Thirdly, 
The reason given is most untrue; for it may appear by all 
the former discourse, to any indifferent reader, that religion, 
as it is professed in the Church of England, is nearest of any 
Church now in being to the Primitive Church, and therefore 
not a religion known to be false. And this I both do and 
can prove, were not the “ deafness of the asp” upon the ears 
of seduced Christians im all human and divided parties 
whatsoever. 

IV.—After these reasons thus given by him, A. C. tells me, 
“that I neither do, nor can, prove any superstition or error 
to be in the Roman religion.” " What, none at all? Now 
truly I would to God from my heart this were true, and that 
the Church of Rome were so happy, and the whole Catholic 
Church thereby blessed with truth and peace; for I am 
confident such truth as that would soon either command 
peace, or confound peace-breakers.' But is there no super- 
stition in adoration of images? None in invocation of saints ? 
None in adoration of the sacrament? Is there no error 
in breaking Christ’s own institution of the sacrament, by 
giving it but in one kind? None about purgatory? About 
common prayer in an unknown tongue, none? ‘These and 
many more are in the “ Roman religion,” if you will needs call 


h T would A.C. would call it the 
*‘Roman persuasion,” as some under- 
standing Romanists do. 

i For though I spare their names, 
yet can I not agree in judgment with 
him that says in print, “God be 
praised for the disagreement in reli- 
gion;’ nor in devotion with him 
that prayed in the pulpit, “that God 
would tear the rent of religion wider.” 
But of S. Gregory Nazianzen’s opinion 


LAUD.— VOL. II. 


Iam: οὔτε εἰρηνεύομεν [ κατὰ τοῦ Ad- 
γου τῆς ἀληθείας, ὑφιέντές τι διὰ δόξαν 
ἐπιεικείας" οὐ γὰρ κακῶς τὸ καλὸν θηρεύ- 
ouev’ καὶ εἰρηνεύομεν ἐννόμως μαχόμενοι, 
k.T.A.] Non studemus paci in detri- 
mentum vere doctrine, ut facilitatis 
et mansuetudinis famam colligamus.— 
Et rursum: Pacem colimus legitime 
pugnantes, &c.—[S. Gregor. Nazian- 
zen.| Orat. [xlii. olim] xxxii. [cap. 13. 
Op., tom. i. p. 757. B.] 


EE 


417 


Srction 
XXXIX, 


Ps. lviii. 4. 


ZA Or ἤνο 


418 


No “pride” in making such charges against Rome, 


Conrerence it so. And it is no hard work to prove every of these to be 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


NICD) 19. 


A.C. p. 68. 


ASG: Ρ. 73. 


“error,” or “superstition,” or both. But if A.C. think so 
meanly of me, that though this be no hard work in itself, yet 
that I, such is my weakness, cannot prove it, I shall leave him 
to enjoy that opinion of me, or whatever else he shall be pleased 
to entertain, and am far better content with this his opinion 
of my weakness than with that which follows of my pride ; 
for he adds, “That I cannot prove any error or superstition 
to be in the Roman religion, but by presuming, with into- 
lerable pride, to make myself, or some of my fellows, to be 
judge of controversies, and by taking authority to censure 
all to be superstition and error, too, which suits not with my 
fancy, although it be generally held or practised by the 
universal Church ; which,” saith he, “in 8. Augustine’s judg- 
ment, is most insolent madness.” What, not prove any 
“superstition,” any “error” at Rome, but by “pride,” and that 
“intolerable?” Truly, I would to God A.C. saw my heart, 
and all the pride that lodges therein. But wherein doth this 
pride appear, that he censures me so deeply? Why, first, 
in this, “ That I cannot prove any error or superstition to be 
in the Roman religion, unless I make myself or some of my 
fellows judge of controversies.” Indeed, if I took this upon 
me, I were guilty of great pride. But A.C. knows well that 
before, in this Conference, which he undertakes to answer, 
Τ am so far from making myself or any of my fellows “judge 
of controversies,” that I absolutely make a lawful and free 
General Council judge of controversies, by and according to 
the Scriptures.« And this I learned from S. Augustine, 
with this, “ That ever the Scripture is to have the prerogative 
above the Council.” ! Nay, A.C. should remember here, that 
he himself taxes me for giving too much power to a General 
Council, and binding men to a strict obedience to it, even in 
ease of error." And therefore, sure, most innocent I am of 
the intolerable pride which he is pleased to charge upon me ; 
and he, of all men, most unfit to charge it. Secondly, A.C. 
will have my “ pride” appear in this, “that I take authority 


k Sect. xxxiii. [vide supra, pp. 2582 cap. 3. [Op., tom. ix. col. 98. A. ubi 
—813.] Sect, xxvi. No. 1—11. [vide sup. p. 224. note £] 
supra, pp. 214—225. | ™ Sect. xxxil. No. 5. [vide supra, 
! Preeponitur Scriptura, &e.—S.Au-  p. 250.] 
gustin. de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. ii. 


as they are made with deference to received tests of Doctrine. 


to censure all for error and superstition, which suits not with 
my own fancy.” But how can this possibly be, since I submit 
my judgment in all humility to the Scripture, interpreted 
by the Primitive Church, and, upon new and necessary 
doubts, to the judgment of a “lawful and free General 
Council ?” And this I do from my very heart, and do abhor, 
in matters of religion, that my own, or any private man’s, 
fancy should take any place, and least of all against things 
generally held or practised by the Universal Church; which 
to oppose in such things, is certainly, as S. Augustine calls it, 
insolentissime insanie, an attempt of “most insolent mad- 
ness.” But those things which the Church of England 
charges upon the Roman party to be superstitious and erro- 
neous, are not held, or practised, in or by the Universal Church 
generally, either for time or place. And now I would have 
A. C. consider how justly all this may be turned upon himself. 
For he has nothing to pretend that there are not gross 
superstitions and errors in the Roman persuasion, unless by 
“intolerable pride” he will make himself and his party 
“ judge of controversies ’””—as in effect he doth, for he will be 
judged by none but the pope, and a Council of his ordering— 
or unless he will take authority to free from superstition and 
error “‘ whatsoever suits with his fancy,” though it be even 
superstition itself; and run cross to what hath been generally 
held in the Catholic Church of Christ, yea, though to do so 
be, in 5. Augustine’s judgment, “most insolent madness.” 
And A.C. spake in this most properly, when he called it 
“ taking of authority ;” for the Bishop and Church of Rome 
have in this particular, of judging controversies, indeed taken 
that authority to themselves, which neither Christ nor His 
Church Catholic did ever give them. Here the Conference 
ended with this conclusion. 

V.—And as I hope God hath given that Lady mercy, so 
I heartily pray that He will be pleased to give all of you 
a light of His truth, and a love to it, that you may no longer 
be made instruments of the pope’s boundless ambition, and 
this most unchristian, brain-sick® device, “That in all 


“§. Augustin. Epist. [liv. ad Janu- © Sect. xxxiii. No. 6. [vide supra, 
arium, olim] exviii. cap. 5. [Op.,tom.  p. 277.] 
ii. col. 126. C. ubi sup. p. 154. note 1. 


Cid) 


HE 


419 


ΘΈΟΤΙΟΝ 


XXXIX. 


420 


ConFRRENCE 
WITH 
VIsHER. 


A.C. p. 73. 


Ephes. iv. 
ile 


The gift of Pastors, &c. (Eph. iv. 11.) does not imply a personal 


controversies of the faith he is infallible, and that by way of 
inspiration and prophecy in the conclusion which he gives.” 
To the due consideration of which, and God’s mercy in 
Christ, I leave you. 

VI.—To this conclusion of the Conference between me 
and the Jesuit, A.C. says not much: but that which he doth 
say is either the self-same which he hath said already, or 
else is quite mistaken in the business. That which he hath 
said already is this: “That in matters of faith we are to 
submit our judgments to such doctors and pastors as, by 
visible continual succession without change, brought the 
faith down from Christ and His Apostles to these our days, 
and shall so carry it to the end of the world. And that this 
succession is not found in any other Church differmg in 
doctrine from the Roman Church.’ Now to this I have 
given a full answer already,’ and therefore will not trouble 
the reader with needless and troublesome repetition. Then 
he brings certain places of Scripture to prove the pope’s 
infallibility. But to all these places I have likewise answered 
before ;4 and therefore A.C. needed not to repeat them 
again, as if they had been unanswerable. 

VII.—One place of Scripture only A. C. had not urged 
before, either for proof of this ‘ continued visible succession,” 
or for the Pope’s infallibility. Nor doth A.C. distinctly set 
down by which of the two he will prove it. The place is 
Ephes. iv.: “ Christ ascending, gave some to be apostles, some 
prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, &c. 
for the edification of the Church.” Now if he do mean to 
prove the Pope’s infallibility by this place, in his pastoral 
judgment, truly I do not see how this can possibly be 
collected thence :—Christ gave some to be apostles for the 
edification of His Church:' Therefore S. Peter and all his 


P Sect. xxxvii. Nos. 3,4. [videsupra, excellent reason for it: Si quidem 


p. 854.] summa potestas ecclesiastica non 
4 Sect. xxv. No. 5. [vide supra, solum data est Petro, sed etiam aliis 
p. 179.] Apostolis—Ibid. So belike by this 


τ [Respondeo,] Pontificatum sum- 
mum diserte positum ab Apostolo in 
illis verbis, Eph. iv. 11: et in illis 
clarioribus, 1 Cor. xii. 28: Ipse posuit 
in Eeelesia primum A postolos.—Bel- 
larmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 9. 
§ 45. [Op., tom.i. col. 537. Ὁ. ubisup. 
p- 186. note ™] And he gives an 


reason the Apostle doth clearly ex- 
press the Popedom, because all the 
rest of the Apostles had as much 
ecclesiastical power as S. Peter had. 
But then Bellarmine would salve it 
up with this, That this power is given 
Petro, ut ordinario pastori, σαὶ [per- 
petuo]succederetur, aliis vero, tanquam 


uninterrupted succession of the Faith unchanged in any one place. 421 


successors are infallible in their pastoral judgment. And 1 Sxcton 
he mean to prove the “ continued visible succession, which,” ΟΣ 
he saith, “is to be found in no Church but the Roman,” 

there is a little more show, but to no more purpose. A 

little more show: because it is added, “That the apostles Ephes. iv. 
and prophets, &c. shall continue at their work,” and that !° 
must needs be by succession, “till we all meet in unity and 
perfection of Christ.” But to no more! purpose: for it 1 {more sus 
is not said that they, or their successors, should cones at fear G 
this their work in a “ personal, uninterrupted succession,” in 

any one particular Church, Roman or other: nor ever will 

A.C. be able to prove that such a succession is necessary A.C. p.73 
in any one particular place. And if he could, yet his own 

words tell ws, the personal succession is nothing, “if the 

faith be not brought down without change from Christ and 

His Apostles to this day, and so to the end of the world.” 

Now here is a piece of cunning too, “The faith brought 

down unchanged.” For if A.C. mean by “the faith,” the 

Creed, and that in letter; it is true, the Church of Rome 

hath received, and brought down, the faith unchanged from 

Christ and His Apostles to these our days. But then it is 
apparently false, That no Church differing from the Roman 

in doctrine, hath kept that faith unchanged, and that by a 

visible and continued succession. For the Greek Church 

differs from the Roman in doctrine, and yet hath so kept 

that faith unchanged. But if he mean by “the faith un- 
changed, and yet brought down in a continual visible suc- 
cession,” not only the Creed in letter, but in sense too—and 

not that only, but all the doctrinal points about the faith, 

which have been determined in all such Councils as the 
present Church of Rome allows—as most certainly he doth 

so mean,* and it is the controversy between us ;—then it is 

most certain, and most apparent to any understanding man, 

that reads antiquity with an impartial eye, that a visible 
continual succession of doctors and pastors have not brought 


delegatis, quibus non succederetur.—  siastical power” was not in S. Peter 
Ibid. But this is mere begging of the alone, but in “all the Apostles.” 
question, and will never be granted s And so also Bellarmine, Sexta 


unto him. And in the mean time, nota est conspiratio in doctrina cum 
we have his absolute confession for ecclesia antiqua.—De Notis Heeles. lib. 
the other, That the “supreme eccle- iv. cap. 9. ὃ 1. [Op., tom. ii. col. 184. C.] 


422 


The Fathers did not hold that the tradition of the Faith 


Coxrerexce down the faith, in this sense, from Christ and His Apostles 


WITH 
FIsuer. 





to these days of ours, in the Roman Church. And that I 
may not be thought to say and not to prove, I give instance. 
And with this, that if A. C., or any Jesuit, can prove, That by 
a “visible continued succession” from Christ and His 
Apostles to this day, either transubstantiation in the eucha- 
rist, or the eucharist in one kind, or purgatory, or worship of 
images, or the intention of the priest of necessity in baptism, 
or the power of the pope over a General Council, or his in- 
fallibility with or without it, or his power to depose princes, 
or the public prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue 
——with divers other points,—have been so taught, I, for my 
part, will give the cause. Besides, for succession, in the 
general, I shall say this: It is a great happiness where it 
may be had “visible” and “continued,” and a great con- 
quest over the mutability of this present world. But I do 
not find any one of the ancient Fathers, that makes “ local, 
personal, visible,” and “ continued succession,” a “necessary 
sign,” or “mark” of the “true Church” in any one place. 
And where Vincentius Lirinensis calls for “antiquity, uni- 
versality,” and “consent,” as great notes of truth,' he hath 
not one word of “succession.” And for that great place in 
Irenzeus, where that ancient Father reckons the succession 
of the Bishops of Rome to Eleutherius, who sat in his time, 
and saith, “That this is a most full and ample proof or 
ostension, vivificatricem fidem, ‘that the living and life- 
giving faith,’ is from the Apostles to this day conserved and 
delivered in truth,’"—“and of which place Bellarmine * 


Ὁ [In ipsa item Catholica ecclesia 
Magnopere curandum est, ut id 
teneatur, quod ubique, quod semper, 
quod ab omnibus creditum est: hoe 
est etenim vere proprieque catholicum, 
quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque decla- 
rat, que omnia vere Universaliter 
comprehendit, sed hoc ita demum 
fit; si  sequamur Universitatem, 
Antiquitatem, Consensionem. ]— Vin. 
Lirinens. contra Heereses, cap. iii. 
[p. 6. ] 

« Hac ordinatione et successione, 
ea que est ab Apostolis in ecclesia 
traditio, et veritatis praeconiatio per- 
venit usque ad nos. Ht est plenissima 
heee ostensio, unam et eandem vivifi- 
catricem fidem esse, ques in ecclesia 


ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, 
et tradita in veritate——S. Iren. ad- 
vers. Heer. lib. iii. cap. 3. [ὃ 3. Op., 
p. 176. ed. Benedict. et p. 203. ed. 
Grabe. The second clause of: this 
passage is not extant in the Greek ; 
the first is: τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει, καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ 
διδαχῇ, (αἰ. διαδοχῇ) ἥτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπο- 
στόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις, καὶ τὸ 
τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς 
nuas. | 

x [Ac propterea omnes veteres hac 
successione, tanquam argumento evi- 
dentissimo, usi sunt ad veram Eccle- 
siam ostendendam. Irenzus, lib. iii. 
cap. 3. enumerat Episcopos Romanos a 
Petro usque ad Eleutherium, qui suo 
tempore sedebat, ac dicit,] Per hane 


implied a personal visible continued succession in any one place. 


boasts so much,—most manifest it 1s in the very same place, 
that Irenzeus stood as much upon the succession of the 
Churches then in Asia, and of Smyrna—though that no 
prime Apostolical Church—where Polycarpus sat bishop, as 
of the succession at Rome.” Y By which it is most manifest, 
that it is not “ personal succession” only, and that tied to 
one place, that the Fathers meant; but they thought that 
the faith was delivered over by “ succession,” in ‘ some places 
or other,” still to their present time; and so doubtless shall 
be, till time be no more. I say, “ the faith,’ but not every 
opinion, true or false, that in tract of time shall cleave 
to the faith. And to the faith itself, and all its funda- 
mentals, we can show as good and full a succession as you; 
and we pretend no otherwise to it than you do, save that we 
take in the Greeks, which you do not: only we reject your 
gross superstitions, to which you can show no succession 
from the Apostles, either at Rome or elsewhere, much less 
any one uninterrupted. And therefore he might have held 


423 


SEcTION 


XKXAIX. 


his peace that says, “It is evident that the Roman Catholic [A.C. p. 6.] 


Church only hath had a constant and uninterrupted suc- 


suecessionem confundi omnes heere- 
ticos.—Bellarmin. de Notis Eccles. 
lib. iv. cap. 8.§ 1. [Op., tom. ii. col. 
178.D.] There is no such word found 
in Iveneeus, as “per hance successio- 
nem,” or, “hac successione,” in the 
Church of Rome only, which is Bellar- 
mine’s sense; but by succession in 
general, in other Churches, as well as 
in Rome.! [The passage to which 
Bellarmine alludes, occurs previously 
in the chapter: Sed quoniam valde 
longum est in hoc tali volumine 
omnium Heclesiarum enumerare suc- 
cessiones; maximee, et antiquissime 
et omnibus cognite, a gloriosissimis 
duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo 
Rome fundatz et constitute ecclesiz, 
eam quam habet ab Apostolis tradi- 
tionem, et annunciatam hominibus 
fidem, per successiones episcoporum 
pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes, 
confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo 
modo, vel per sibi placentia, (al. 
placentiam) vel vanam gloriam, vel 
per ceecitatem et malam sententiam, 
preeterquam oportet colligunt. — 8. 
Ireneeus, ibid. § 2. Op., p. 175. ed. 
Benedict. et p. 201. ed. Grabe, ubi 
sup. p. 202. note ἃ. 

y 'Vestimonium his perhibent que 


sunt in Asia ecclesiz omnes, et qui 
usque adhue successerunt Polycarpo. 
—. Irenzeus adversus Heeres. lib. 11]. 
cap: ὁ. Ὁ Op. p. 177. ed. Bene- 
dict. et p. 203. ed. Grabe. μαρτυροῦσιν 
τούτοις αἱ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ἐκκλησίαι 
πᾶσαι, καὶ οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι 
τὸν Πολύκαρπον. |—Constat [| proinde } 
omnem doctrinam, qu cum illis 
Ecelesiis Apostolicis matricibus et 
originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati 
deputandam. — Tertullian. de pree- 
script. adversus Heeret. cap. xxi. [ubi 
sup. p. 404. note 4.|—[Ad hance itaque 
formam probabuntur ab illis Ecclesiis, 
quee licet nullum ex Apostolis, vel 
Apostolicis, auctorem suum _profe- 
rant, ut multo] posteriores, [que deni- 
que quotidie instituuntur: tamen in 
eadem fide conspirantes,] non minus 
Apostolicee deputantur, pro consan- 
guinitate doctrinee.— Tertullian. ibid. 
cap. xxxii. [Op., p. 213. C. ]—Iccle- 
sia non in parietibus consistit, We. 
Ecclesia autem ibi est, ubi fides 
vera est. — [Pseudo-]8. Hieronym. 
{Breviar.] in Ps. exxxiii. [ubi sup. 
p. 336. note‘. | 





1 [This last clause, “as... Rome,” 
is added in Hditt. 1673, and 1686.] 


424 Tertullian S. Ireneus make truth of Doct.necessary to the succession. 


CONFERENCE 
WITH 
FIsuer. 


1 for of 
person 
ὌΠΙΝ 6 oo - 
Edit. 1673. 
nor person 
ὉΠ τς 
Hdit. 
1685. ] 


cession of pastors, and doctors, and tradition of doctrine 
from age to age;” for most evident it is, that the tradition 
of doctrine hath received both addition and alteration since 
the first five hundred years, in which Bellarmine ’ confesses, 
and Bishop Jewell maintains, the Church’s doctrme was 
apostolical. 

VIII.—And once more, before I leave this pomt: most 
evident it is, That the “ succession”? which the Fathers 
meant, is not tied to place or person, but it is tied to the 
“verity of doctrine.” For so Tertullian expressly : ‘‘ Beside 
the order of bishops running down” in succession “ from 
the beginning, there is required consanguinitas doctrine, 
‘that the doctrine be allied in blood’ to that of Christ and 
His Apostles.”? So that if the doctrine be no kin to Christ, 
all the “succession”’ become strangers, what nearness soever 
they pretend. And Iveneus speaks plainer than he: ‘ We 
are to obey those presbyters, which, together with the suc- 
cession of their bishoprics, have received charisma veritatis, 
‘the gift of truth’”> Now Stapleton, being pressed hard 
with these two authorities, first confesses expressly, “ that 
succession, as it is a note of the true Church, is neither a 
succession in place only, nor of persons only,’ but it must be 
of true and sound doctrine also.” ° And had he stayed here, 
no man could have said better; but then he saw well he 


7 [Certum autem est] antiquam 
ecclesiam primis quingentis annis 
veram ecclesiam fuisse, et proinde 
apostolicam doctrinam retinuisse.— 
Bellarmin. de Notis Eccles. lib. iv. 
cap. 9. ὁ 1. ([Op., tom. ii. col. 184. C.] 

* Ad hance [itaque] formam probabun- 
tur ab illis Eecclesiis, quee licet nullum 
ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis auctorem 
suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, 
que denique quotidie instituuntur: 
tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non 
minus Apostolice deputantur, pro 
consanguinitate doctrine. — Tertul- 
lian. de prescript. adversus Heeret. 
cap. xxxii. [ubi sup. note ¥.] 

> Tllis presbyteris obediendum est, 
qui cum episcopatus successione 
charisma acceperunt veritatis. — S. 
Trenzeus, [adv. Heeres.] lib. iv. cap. 43. 
[The whole passage is: Qui vero 
erediti quidem sunt a multis esse 
presbyteri, serviunt autem suis volup- 
tatibus....ab omnibus talibus ab- 


sistere oportet ; adheerere vero his, qui 
et Apostolorum, sicut prediximus, 
doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presby- 
terli ordine sermonem sanum, et con- 
versationem sine offensa preestant... 
tales presbyteros nutrit ecclesia. ... 
ubi igitur charismata Domini posita 
sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, 
apud quos est ea que est ab Apostolis 
ecclesiz successio, et id quod est 
sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, 
et inadulteratum et incorruptibile ser- 
monis constat.—§ 3,4, 5. Op., pp. 262, 
263. ed. Benedict. et capp. 44, 45. 
pp. 344, 3845. ed. Grabe. ] 

¢ [Primum, notabimus quod] suc- 
eessio, [de qua hic agitur,] nec loco- 
rum tantum est, nec personarum, sed 
etiam veree atque sanee doctrine [suc- 
cessio. |—Stapleton. Relect. Controver. 
[Controv. i. de Ecclesia in 88,] 
[Queest.] iv. A[rtic.] 2. Notabile 1. 
[Op., tom. i. p. 563. B.] 





Stapleton admits, and would evade, the force of this. 


must quit his great “note” of the “ Church succession :” 
that he durst not do; therefore he begins to cast about 
how he may answer these Fathers, and yet maintain “ suc- 
cession.” Secondly, therefore, he tells us, that that which 
these Fathers say do nothing weaken “succession,” but that 
it shall still be a main “ note” of the “true Church,” and 
in that sense which he would have it; and his reason is: 
“ Because sound doctrine is indivisible from true and lawful 
succession.”* Where you shall see this great clerk—for so 
he was—not able to stand to himself, when he hath forsaken 
truth. For it is not long after that he tells us, “That the 
people are led along, and judge the doctrine, by the pastors ; 
but when the Church comes to examine, she judges the 
pastors by their doctrine.’ And this, he says, is necessary, 
“because a man may become, of a pastor, a wolf’’* Now, 
then, let Stapleton take his choice. For either a pastor in 
this succession cannot become a wolf, and then this pro- 
position is false ; or else, if he can, then sound doctrine is not 
inseparable from true and legitimate succession, and then 
the former proposition is false:—as indeed it is; for that 
a good pastor may become a wolf, is no news in the ancient 
story of the Church, in which are registered the change of 
many great men into heretics,! (I spare their names ;) and 
since Judas changed from an Apostle to a devil, it is no 
wonder to see others change from shepherds into wolves. 
1 doubt the Church is not empty of such changelings at this 
day. Yea, but Stapleton will help all this; for he adds, 
“That suppose the pastors do forsake true doctrine, yet 
succession shall still be a true note of the Church; yet not 
every succession, but that which is legitimate and true.” 


@ [Neque tamen successionis notam 
hoc infirmat. Ratio est,| quia doctrina 
sana est ab ipsa vera et legitima suc- 
cessione [| prorsus] indivulsa ; [ideoque 
data successione legitima, indubitate 
sequitur vera doctrina.] — Stapleton. 
ibid. - 

¢ [Notabimus quarto, judicinm de 
doctrina duplex esse, ut intelligamus 
quatenus aliquando ipsa doctrina 
possit esse nota doctoris. Doctrina 
igitur fidei innotescit dupliciter. Sub- 
jecto populo, infirmis et turbis inno- 
tescit doctrina per doctorem et pasto- 


rem ; nec judicandus ab illis, sed 
audiendus tantum, pastor est. At 
vero toti ecclesiz ceu superiori suo 
innotescit verus pastor et doctor 
orthodoxus, non per personam quam 
gerit,] mam e pastore lupus fieri 
potest, [sed per doctrinam quam 
docet. |—Stapleton. ibid. Notabile 4. 
[p. 563. D.] 

f Vincent. Lirinens. contra Heres. 
capp. Xxill. xxiv. [pp. 49—55. Origen 
and Tertullian are especially alluded 
to. | 


425 


SECTION 
XXXIX. 


John vi. 70. 


426 


Coyrerence Well; and what is that ? 


WITH 
Fisuer. 


1 /iereed... 
male Kdit. 
1686. ] 


Because we deny the infallible authority of the Pope 


Why, “That succession is lawful, 
which is of those pastors which hold entire the unity and the 
faith.’ Where you may see this Samson’s hair cut off 
again ; for at his word I will take him: and if that only be 
a legitimate succession, which holds the unity and the faith 
entire, then the succession of pastors in the Roman Church 
is illegitimate, for they have had more schisms amongst 
them than any other Church,!—therefore they have not kept 
the unity of the Church; and they have brought in gross 
superstition,—therefore they have not kept the faith entire. 
Now, if A.C. have any mind to it, he may do well to help 
Stapleton out of these briars, upon which he hath torn his 
credit,’ and I doubt his conscience too, to uphold the corrup- 
tions of the see of Rome. 

ΙΧ. ΑΒ for that in which he is quite mistaken, it is his 
inference, which is this: “That I should therefore consider 
carefully, whether it be not more Christian, and less brain- 
sick, to think that the pope, being S. Peter’s successor, with 
a General Council, should be judge of controversies, &c., and 
that the pastoral judgment of him should be accounted infal- 
ible, rather than to make every man that can read the 
Scripture interpreter of Scripture, decider of controversies, 
controller of General Councils, and judge of his judges: or 
to have no judge at all of controversies of faith, but permit 
every man to believe as he list; as if there were no infallible 
certainty of faith to be expected on earth ; which were, instead 
of one saving faith, to induce a Babylonical confusion of so 
many faiths as fancies, or no true Christian faith at all. From 
which evils, sweet Jesus, deliver us!” I have considered of 
this very carefully ; but this inference supposes that which 
I never granted, nor any Protestant that 1 yet know—namely, 
that if I deny the pope to be judge of controversies, I must 
by and by either leave this supreme judicature in the hands 


5. [Notabimus quinto, etsi pastores 
deserere possunt veram doctrinam, 
non tamen propterea successionis vel 
filum abrumpi, vel notam infirmari 
aut incertam reddi. Non enim que- 
vis, sed legitima et vera, successio est 
ecclesiz nota.| Est [autem] illorum 
pastorum legitima successio, qui [eum 
suis antecessoribus, a quibus ordinati 
sunt, ] unitatem tenent; et a fide, [in 


qua ordinati sunt, postea] non rece- 
dunt. [Heec duo faciunt successionem 
certam, legitimam, et indubitatam.— 
Stapleton. ibid. Notabile 5. [p. 564. A.] 

h In their own chronologer, Onu- 
phrius, there are thirty acknowledged. 
{ef. Onuphrii Panvinii, Veronensis, 
Fasti, ὅθ. appended to Platine Vit. 
Pontific. ] 


as a judge, we do not make each individual such. 


and power of every private man, that can but read the Scrip- 
ture, or else allow no judge at all, and so let in all manner 
of confusion. No, God forbid I should grant either: for 
I have expressly declared, “That the Scripture, interpreted 
by the Primitive Church, and a lawful and free General 
Council determining according to these, is judge of contro- 
versies: and that no private man whatsoever is or can be 
judge of these.”! Therefore A.C. is quite mistaken—and 
I pray God it be not wilfully, to beguile poor Ladies, and 
other their weak adherents, with seeming to say somewhat— 
Τ say, quite mistaken, to infer that Iam either for “a private 
judge,” or for “no judge;” for I utterly disclaim both, and 
that as much if not more than he, or any Romanist, whoever 
he be. But these things in this passage I cannot swallow : 
First, “That the Pope with a General Council should be 
judge ;” for the Pope in ancient Councils never had more 
power than any the other patriarchs: precedency, perhaps 
for order’s sake and other respects, he had. Nor had the 
Pope any negative voice against the rest in point of difference. 
No, nor was he held superior to the Council:* therefore 
the ancient Church never accounted or admitted him a 
judge; no, not with a Council, much less without it. 
Secondly, it will not down with me that his “ pastoral judg- 
ment” should be “ infallible;” especially since some of them 
have been as ignorant as many that can but read the Scripture.' 


i Sect. xxvi. No. 1. [vide supra, 
p. 214.) 

k Patrum et avorum nostrorum tem- 
pore, pauci audebant dicere, Papam 
esse supra Concilium.— Aineas Sylvius, 
seu Pius II. de Gestis Concil. Basil. 
lib. i—Et, Iludque in primis cupio 
notum, quia Romanum papam, omnes 
qui aliquo numero sunt, Concilio 
subjiciunt—lIbid. apud Fasciculum 
Rerum expetendarum [acfugiendarum, 
per Orthuinum Gratium collect] 
fol. v. [F. ed. Colon. 1535.|—[Tertia] 
propositio: Summus pontifex [sim- 
pliciter et absolute] est supra eccle- 
siam universam, et supra concilium 
generale, [ita ut nullum in terris 
supra se judicium agnoscat.] Haze 
[etiam] est fere de fide, [et probatur, 
w&e.|—Bellarmin. de Concil. auctoritat. 
lib. ii. ceap.17. §1. [Op., tom. 11. col. 
95. ΒΒ. 

1 [Sed] cum hoe tempore Rome 


nullus [pene] sit, ut fama est, qui 
sacras (caret Baron.) literas didicerit, 
[sine quibus, ut scriptum est, vix 
ostiarius efficitur]: qua fronte aliquis 
docere audebit, quod minime didicit ? 
—Arnulph. [Episcop. Aurelian. seu 
forsan Gerberti, contra Arnulph. 
Episcop. Rhemensem Oratio,] apud 
Concil. Rhemense, [Baren. Annal. 
an. 992. n°. xxv. Cf. Concil. tom. ix. 
coll. 737,.738. et ibid. notas Binii.|— 
Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo 
illiteratos esse, ut grammaticam 
penitus ignorent, qui fit ut sacras 
literas interpretari possint ? — Al- 
phons. a Castro, advers. Heres. lib. i. 
cap. 4. versus medium, ed. Paris. 
1534. For both that at Antwerp, 
an. 1556, and that at Paris, an. 1571, 
have been in purgatory. [Cf. p. 294. 
et ibid. note ¥.|—And such an igno- 
rant as these was Pope John XXIY. 
[Joannes capitur, et in carcerem 


427 


ΘΈΟΤΙΟΝ 


XXXIX. 


4.28 


The Faith entire, and infallible ; certainty respecting it attainable. 


Coxrerence Thirdly, I cannot admit this neither—though he do most 


WITH 
FIsuer. 


cunningly thereby abuse his readers—that any thing hath 
been said by me, out of which it can justly be inferred, 
“ That there is no infallible certaimty of faith to be expected 
on earth ;” for there is most infallible certainty of it—that 1s, 
of the foundations of it—in Scripture and the Creeds: and 
it is so clearly delivered there, as that it needs no judge at 
all to sit upon it, for the articles themselves. And so entire 
a body is this one faith in itself, as that the whole Church, 
much less the Pope, hath not power to add one article to it, 
nor leave to detract any one the least from 10 But when 
controversies arise about the meaning of the articles, or 
superstructures upon them—which are doctrines about the 
faith, not the faith itself, unless where they be immediate 
consequences—then, both in and of these, a lawful and free 
General Council," determining according to Scripture, is the 
best judge on earth. But then, suppose uncertainty in some 
of these superstructures, it can never be thence concluded, 
that there is no infallible certainty of the faith itself. 

But it is time to end, especially for me, that have so many 
things of weight lying upon me and disabling me from these 
polemic discourses, beside the burden of sixty-five years 


conjicitur....Causam fugee disqui- 
rere concilium tum coepit, certosque 
judices viros gravissimos et doctis- 
simos delegit, qui crimina Joanni ob- 
jecta discuterent ... Ad quadraginta 
capitula et eo amplius contra hominem 
probata sunt: quorum aliqua cum in 
eo minime immutari possent, adeo 
erant inveterata, contra fidem judicata 
sunt, aliqua vero Christianis omnibus, 
sinon damnarentur, scandalum pari- 
tura...Joannes merito e pontificatu 
dejectus.]—Platina in vita ejus, [p. 
285.]—Et | vide supra,| Sect. xxxiii. 
Consid. vii. No. 7. [p. 293.] 

m™ Resolutio Occham est, quod nee 
tota ecclesia, nee concilium generale, 
nec summus pontifex potest facere 
articulum, πο] non fuit articulus. 
Sed Ecclesia bene determinat de pro- 
positionibus Catholicis,de quibus erat 
dubium, &e.—Jacob. Almain. in III. 
Sentent. D[istinct.] xxv. Q[uest.] 
unica. Dub. 3. (fol. xxx. ubi sup. p.33. 
note .|—Sicut ad ea que spectant ad 
fidem nostram, et nequaquam ex vo- 
luntate humana dependent, non potest 





summus pontifex, nee Ecclesia de as- 
sertione non vera, veram : nee de non 
falsa, falsam facere: ita non potest de 
non Catholica, Catholicam facere : nec 
de non heeretica, heereticam. Et ideo 
non potest novum articulum facere, 
nec articulum fidei tollere. Quoniam 
sicut veritates Catholicee absque omni 
approbatione Hcclesiz ex natura rei 
sunt immutabiles, et immutabiliter 
vere, ita suntimmutabiliter Catholics 
reputandz. Similiter sicut heereses 
absque omni reprobatione et damna- 
tione sunt false, ita absque omni 
reprobatione sunt hareses reputande, 
&c.—[Gabr.] Biel. in 11]. Sentent. 
D{istinct.] xxv. Q{ueest.] unica, Art. 3. 
Dub. 3. vers. finem. [S.]—Et postea: 
Patet ergo quod nulla veritas est 
Catholica ex approbatione ecclesiz vel 
pape. [Sed Ecclesia aut papa, per 
suam approbationem, aliquam verita- 
tem fuisse, aut esse, Catholicam cog- 
noscit ac definit.—Ibid. } 

" Sect. xxvi. No.1. [vide supra, 
p. 214.] 


Conclusion. 429 


complete, which draws on apace to the period set by the  Sxcrtoy 
prophet David,° and to the time that I must go, and give eS 
God and Christ an account of the “talent” committed to Psal- xe.10. 
my charge. In which God, for Christ Jesus’ sake, be merciful 
to me, Who knows that however in many weaknesses, yet 
I have with a faithful and single heart—bound to His free 
grace for it—laboured the meeting, the blessed meeting, of 
“‘truth and peace” in His Church; and which God, in His Ps. Ixxxy. 
own good time, will, I hope, effect. Τὸ Him be all honour τι 
and praise for ever. AMEN. 
ὁ {The Puritan answer to Laud, (Ps.xc.) You mistake the penman; 
“A Replie toa Relation of the Con- for it was Moses. But to let that pass, 
ference between William Laude and as a common mistake: and as a law 
Mr. Fisher the Jesuite: bya Witnesse which it seems you have imposed upon 
of Jesus Christ. (Imprinted, anno yourself, and observed throughout 
1640,”) characteristically observes: your book, not to cite any scripture 


“And you say, ‘it draws on apace to without perverting of it.” ] 
the period set by the prophet David,’ 





INDEX. 


A. 


Arricans: their opposing the Roman 
Church, and separating from it, 191, 
ἃς. They are cursed and damned for 
it by Eulalius, and this accepted by 
the Pope, 192. S. Augustine involved 
in that curse, ibid. 

Almain, Jac., against the Pope’s infalli- 
bility, 293. His absurd tenet touching 
the belief of Scripture and the Church, 
90. 

Alphonsus a Castro’s confession touch- 
ing the Pope’s fallibility, 294. His 
moderation touching heresy, 29. His 
late editions shrewdly purged, 294. 

Anselm, $., Archbishop of Canterbury, 
how esteemed of by Pope Urban the 
Second, 190. 

Apocrypha: some books received by the 
Trent Fathers which are not by Sextus 
Senensis, 372. 

Appeals, Of, to foreign Churches, 188, 
189. No appeal from Patriarchs or 
Metropolitans, 7b. 

Aristotle falsely charged to hold the 
mortality of the soul, 127 note "Ὁ, 

Arians: the large spreading of them, 
336. Wherein they dissented from 
the orthodox Christians, 348. 

Assistance, what promised by Christ to 
his Church, what not, 106, 107, 180, 
&e. 254, Χο. What given to his 
Church and Pastors thereof, 110, 112, 
265, 266, 282, 397. 

Assurance infallible even by human 
proof, 139, 140. 

Augustine, S., cleared, 39, 68, 69, 93—95, 
142, 187, 208, &c ; righted, 153, 154, 
268, 269, 891. His proofs of Serip- 
ture, 114. 

Author, The, his small time to prepare 
for this Conference, 25. His submis- 
sion to the Church of England and 
the Church Catholic, 252. The rule of 
his faith, 418,419. Pride imputed to 
him, and retorted upon the imputers, 
418, 419. 


B. 


Baptism: of anointing, use of spittle, 
and three dippings in it, 81. That of 
infants, how proved out of Scripture, 
64—67. Acknowledged by some Ro- 
manists that it may be proved thence, 
68. The necessity of it, 64. How 
proved by tradition, and S. Augus- 
tine’s mind therein, 68, 69, That by 
heretics, schismatics, and sinners, not 
theirs but Christ’s, 333. 

Basil, S., explained, 105 note *. 

Beatitude supreme, how to be attained, 
127 note 4. 

Belief of some things necessary before 
they be known, 91. See Faith. 

Bellarmine: his cunning discovered and 
confuted, 11—14, 230. His dissent 
from Stapleton, 46, 47; and from 
Catharinus, 58. His absurd and im- 
pious tenet touching belief of Serip- 
ture confuted, 101 note ", 

Berengarius: his gross recantation, 365 
note ἢ. 

Bernard, S., righted, 153. 

Biel: his true assertion touching things 
that be de fide, 428 note ™. 

Bishops: their calling and authority 
over the inferior clergy, 194, 195. 
Their places and precedences ordered, 
195. The titles given them of old, 
187. All of the same merit and de- 
gree, 221, 222. 

Bodies representing and represented : 
their power, privileges, &c. compared 
together, 252, &e. 291. 

Britanny, of old not subject to the see 
of Rome, 190. ὃ. Gildas’s testimony 
concerning the antiquity of the con- 
version of it, 8346 note ¥. And that 
testimony vindicated, 7b. 


C. 


Calvin and Calvinists for the Real Pre- 
sence, 827, &c. 331. 
Campanella, his late Eclogue, 233. 


4.32 INDEX. 


Campian, his boldness, 1638. 

Canterbury, the ancient place and power 
of the Archbishops thereof, 190. 

Capellus, his censure οἵ Baronius, 169. 

Certainty. See Faith. 

Certainty of salvation. See Salvation. 

Christ’s descent into hell. See Descent. 

Church, whereon founded, 13. Wherein 
it differeth from a General Council, 
32. No particular one infallible, 3, 4, 
104, 105, &e. Not that of Rome, 4, 
8, 9, &c. 17,18. Catholic Church, 
which is it, 346, &c. Her declara- 
tions, what fundamental, what not, 
37, 38. How far they bind, 38. Her 
authority not divine, 41. Not in 
those things wherein she cannot err, 
77. Wherein she cannot universally 
err, 155,156, 157, 178, 260. What can 
take holiness from her, 157—159. 
In what points of faith she may err, 
179. Her errors and corruptions, 
how and by whom caused, 213. What 
required of her that she may not err, 
214, 215. She in the commonwealth, 
not the commonwealth in her, 223, 
ἅς. Howshe must be always visible, 
353. The invisible in the visible, 155. 
Of her double root, 408—410. What 
the opinion of the ancients concerning 
it, 404, 405, &c. 409. A Church, and 
the Church, how they differ, 143, 
145, Χο. By what assistance of the 
Spirit the Church can be made infal- 
lible, 104. The authority of the pri- 
mitive compared with that of the 
present Church, 93. 

Church of Czesarea, her title given by 
Gregory Nazianzen, 187 note . 

Church, Greek. See G. 

Church of England, a part of the Ca- 
tholic, 346, ἄς. Where her doctrine 
is set down, 59. Her motherly deal- 
ing with her children, 7. Her 
articles and canons maintained, 60. 
Of her positive and negative articles, 
62, 63. Her purity, 417. How safe 
to communicate with her, 414. What 
judges and rules in things spiritual 
she hath and acknowledgeth, 234. 
How she is wronged by the Roman, 
347,348. Salvation more certain in 
her than in the Roman, 361, 362, &e. 
How one particular Church may judge 
another, 184, &c. Mutual crimina- 
tions of the Hastern and Western, 
196, 197. 

Church, A, in Israel after her separation 
from Judah, 167. 

Church of Rome, wherein she hath 
erred, 22,105. Sometimes right, not 
so now, 147,148. Though she be a 
true Church, yet not right or ortho- 
dox, 143, 144. Her want of charity, 


29, 30. Her determining of too 
many things the cause of many evils, 
59, 60. Her severity in cursing all 
other Christians, 60. How far she 
extendeth the authority of her testi- 
mony, 74. Her rash condemning 
of others, 156, 159. How she and 
how other Churches, apostolic, 411. 
How corrupted in doctrine and man- 
ners, 165, 166. She not the Catholic 
Church, 318, 409, 410. False titles 
given her, 403. Her belief, how dif- 
ferent from that of the ancient Church, 
363, 364. Other Churches as wellas she 
called Matres and Originales Ecclesia, 
404 note4, A Church at Jerusalem, 
Antioch, and probably in England, 
before one at Rome, 346. Cardinal 
Perron, his absurd tenet that the Ro- 
man Church is the Catholic causally, 
348. Sce Errors, Pope, Rome. 

Concomitancy in the Eucharist. See 
Eucharist. 

Conference, the occasion of this, 1, 2. 
The Jesuit’s manner of dealing in 
this and in two former, 359. 

Confessions negative, made by Churches, 
in what case needful, 173. 

Controversies: that in them consent of 
parties is no proof of truth, 323, 324, 
326, 337, &e. 

Councils, their fallibility, 253, 272, 276, 
277, ἕο. 883. The infallibility they 
have is not exact but congruous in- 
fallibility, 288. Whence and where 
it is principally resident, 283, 291. 
None of the present Church abso- 
lutely infallible, 104. Confirmation 
of them by the Pope, a Roman no- 
velty, 216. Who may dispute against 
them, who not, 41,45. How inferiors 
may judge of their decrees, 275. A 
General Council the only fit judge of 
the present controversies, 234, 235. 
And how that to be qualified, 170, 
174, 214, 246, &c. The Bishop 
of Rome not always president in 
General Councils, 237. What impe- 
diments have been and now are of 
calling and continuing them, 217. 
What confirmation they need, 215, 
216, 248. What of them lawful, what 
not, 239, &ec. What obedience to be 
yielded to them erring, 247, 248, 286, 
287, &c. What is the utmost they 
can do, 35. The words, “ Visum est 
Spiritui Sancto et nobis,” not used by 
any posterior Council, 263. The first 
and later Councils differently assisted, 
265, 282. Whence they have their 
power and assistance, 253, &e. The 
prior may be amended by the poste- 
rior, 269, &c. What decrees of them 
are necessary to be believed, 286. 


INDEX. 


How they are held by the Romanists 
to be infallible, 277. Their decrees 
by Stapleton held to be the oracles of 
the Holy Ghost, 264. That they are 
not prophetical in their conclusions, 
277—279. Of their necessity and 
frequency, 217. That they may err, 
the whole Church not erring, 287. 
Their errors how to be amended, 174. 
How made of no worth at all by the 
Romanists without the Pope, 292. 

Councils and Fathers: how we are sure 
we have their true copies, 368, 369. 
Conelusions of Councils, how to be 
believed, 384. Their determinations 
not all of equal authority, 399. By 
whom they were and ought to be 
called, 237. Against the Pope’s being 
above a General Council, 372, 427. 
Conditions required to make a Coun- 
cil lawful, 240. Protestants invited 
to one upon doubtful and dangerous 
terms, 159. Of the Council of Flo- 
rence, and the Greeks their subscrib- 
ing to it, 385 note 2. 

Council of Constance: [its] injurious 
proceeding against Huss, &c., 160, 
161. Becanus’s defence of it con- 
futed, 7b. Its great error touching 
communion in one kind, 288. 

Council of Nice: the absence of the 
Western Bishops from it, how recom- 
pensed, 244." 

Council of Africa in 8. Cyprian’s time 
erred about baptism by heretics, 270. 

Council of Trent: how oceasioned, and 
what an one it was, 170. Not general 
nor legal, and so null, 236, 242. 
Compared with ancient Councils, 47, 
241, 242, &c. The blind pertinacy 
of the Fathers there, 162, note Y. 
Her dangerous and wilful error con- 
cerning the intention of those that 
administer the sacraments, 304, 305. 
Claimed by Soto and Vega for their 
contrary tenets, 57. Of things there 
determined, 44. There the Pope 
ought not to have sat as president, 
237, 238. Bishops made of purpose 
to make a major part there, 242. 
More Italian Bishops in it than of all 
Christendom beside, 248. Its addi- 
tion ‘of twelve new articles to the 
Creed, 379 note °. 

Creed: that it is a rule of faith, 49. 
That it is wholly grounded on Scrip- 
ture, 51. Some words added to it, 
why, and by whom, 14. Irenzus’s 
famous testimony of it, 371 note ™. 

Creed, Athanasian, expounded and vin- 
dicated, 358, 379, 380. 

Cyprian, S., cleared, 4, ἅς. 8; and 
righted, 404. 

Cyril, S. of Alexandria, vindicated,12,13. 


VOL. II.— LAUD. 


433 


iD} 


Demonstrative reasons of greater force 
than any other human proof, 273, 274. 
Direct proof and demonstrative, how 
they differ, 63. 

Descent of Christ into hell, how held by 
the Church of England, and how by 
those of Rome, 51— 54, 338. 

Dissent and difference in opinion, what 
may stand with the peace of the 
Church, 400. 

Disputations, their use, 143. Whenand 
how lawful for a private man to dis- 
pute with the whole Church, 155. 
Public disputations, how safe or avail- 
able, 163. In what case to be ad- 
mitted between the English and the 
Romish clergy, 163. 

Divinity: that it hath a science above 
it, and what, 136,137. The princi- 
ples of it otherwise confirmed than 
those of any other art, 118, 136, 137. 

Donatus: two of that name, 335 note 4. 

Donatists compared with the Romanists, 
333—835. Whether any of them 
living and dying so had possibility 
of salvation, and which, 334. Whether 
they were guilty of heresy, 334 note 4. 


E. 


Emperor: whom the Jesuits would have 
to be, 225, 232, 233. See Pope. 

Epiphanius cleared and vindicated, 205 
— 208. 

Errors not fundamental, to whom and 
in what case damnable, 320, 371. 

Errors of Councils. See Councils. 

Errors of the Roman Church wanting 
all proof from ancient Councils and 
Fathers, 339, &c. 422, 423. What be 
the most dangerous of them, 417. Hr- 
rors of Papists, to whom fundamental, 
352, 353. See Church of Rome. 

Eucharist : a threefold sacrifice in it, 
340, 341. Mutilated by the Roman 
Church, 22, 288, 289. Upon what 
hard terms the Bohemians were dis- 
pensed with to have it in both kinds, 
338. The Papists tied by their own 
grounds to believe of it as the Church 
of England doth, 320, &ec. The Church 
of England and other Protestants be- 
lieve Christ’s real presence in it, 323, 
324, 326—331. Concomitancy in it. 
Thomas of Aquin’s fiction confuted, 
339. Bellarmine’s notorious contra- 
diction of Christ’s being in it corpo- 
rally present, 330 note *. His new 
and intricate doctrine touching tran- 
substantiation, 364, 365. Of the un- 
bloody sacrifice and the bloody, how 


FF 


484. INDEX. 


they differ, 340 note“. The propi- 
tiatory and gratulatory sacrifice, how 
they differ, 341 note “, 
Expositions: such only right as the 
thing expounded containeth, 36. 
Extravagants, the, censured, 236 note ™. 


F. 


Faith: how it is unchangeable, and yet 
hath been changed, 11. What is cer- 
tain by the certainty of it, 46. Not 
to be termed the Roman, but the 
Christian or Catholic faith, 153, &e. 
The two regular precepts of it, 49. 
Of its prime principles, and how they 
differ from the articles of it, 50. The 
last resolution of it, into what it 
should be, 75, 76, 103, 114, 115, 367, 
380, δα. 

Faith acquired and faith infused, 
wherein either or both required, 396 
note *. How few things are essential to 
the faith, 402, 403. How its princi- 
ples differ from those of sciences, 118. 
Its foundation the Scripture, 61. By 
it man brought to his last happiness, 
120, 123, 124. How by it the under- 
standing is captivated, 125. That it 
is an act produced by the will, 87,119. 
The principles of it have sufficient 
evidence of proof, 134,135. It and 
reason compared in their objects, &c. 
279, &c. A latitude init in reference 
to different men’s salvation, 362, 402. 
Things of two sorts belonging to it, 
44, What by it to be believed ex- 
plicitly, what not, 370,371. Ofthe per- 
fection and certainty of it, 427, 428. 
Of things not necessary to salvation, 
no infallible faith can be among men, 
397. Foundation of faith how shaken, 
46. How fretted by those of Rome, 
105. The Catholic and the now Ro- 
man faith not both one, 378. Faith 
of Scripture to be God’s word infused 
by the Holy Ghost, 84, 85. The true 
grounds of it, 124,125,128,130. Our 
faith of it, how it differs from that of 
those who wrote Scripture, 123, 124. 
Faith of Scripture, that it hath all 
perfections necessary, 128,129. How 
firm and invincible it is, 129. 

Felicity : what it is, and that the soul 
of man is capable of it, 127. 

Ferus’s acknowledgment of the differ- 
ence betwixt the first Councils and 
the late ones, 265 note 4 

Fundamental : what maketh a point to 
be such, 883—385, 41. That decrees of 
Councils are not such,48. What points 
be so and what not, 31, 38, 39, &c. 
48, 370. Notall ofalike primeness, 50. 


All fundamentals held by the whole 
Church, 33. Points not fundamental, 
how and to whom necessary to salva- 
tion, 33. Firm and fundamental, how 
they differ, 43. 


G. 


Gerson, his ingenuity, 170. 

Ghost, Holy, how said to be lost, 24. 
His procession from the Son added 
to the Creed by the Roman Church, 
29,168. The Greek Church, her error 
touching this, 24. What and how 
dangerous, 27. 

God: proof of the true one by testi- 
mony of the false ones, 90. 

Government of the Church, in what 
sense monarchical, in what aristo- 
cratical, 221, 222, &c. How a mon- 
archical not needful, 234. 

Gregory Nazianzen, S., vindicated, 12. 
His humility and mildness, 187 note’. 

Gregory VII., Pope, the raiser of the 
Papacy to the height, 229, 230. His 
Twenty-seven Conclusions the basis of 
the Papal greatness, 201 note *. 

Greek Church, notwithstanding her 
error, still a true Church, 29. And 
justified by some Romanists, 7. Her 
hard usage by the Church of Rome, 
ib. Of her Bishops, their subscrip- 
tion to the Council of Florence, 385. 


ἯΙ: 


Heresies: what maketh them,35. The 
occasion of their first springing up, 
217 note‘. How, and by whom begun 
at Rome, 15, 16. 

Heretics, who, and who not, 315. None 
to be rashly condemned for such, 29. 
That some may pertain to the Church, 
349 note Ὁ, Who they be that teach 
that faith given to heretics is not to 
be kept, 160, 161. 

Hierom, S. explained, 9, 153 note 8. In 
what esteem he had Bishops, 195. 

Hooker righted, 101, 102, 103. 


1E 


James, S. believed to have been succes- 
sor of our Lord in the principality of 
the Church, 207. 

Idolaters: their gods how put down by 
Christian religion, 90. Idolatry, how 
maintained in the Church of Rome, 
and with what evil consequences, 309, 


&e. 
Jeremias the Greek patriarch, Of, his 
censure, 245. 


PT gin! eve cn 


INDEX. 


Jesuits : their manner of dealing in this 
Conference, 359. Their cunning in 
expounding the Fathers to their own 
purpose, 10. Their confidence, 26. 
Their arrogancy, 108. Their subtle 
malignity, 415. Their attributing to 
themselves infallibility, 108. Their 
desire of having one king as one pope, 
102. Their late cunning argument 
to draw Protestants to them answered, 
333, &c. Their falsification of the 
Author’s words, 151. 

Jesuitism, a perfect, 145, 146. 

Jews: the ground of their belief of the 
Old Testament, 138. 

Images: how worshipped by the Church 
of Rome, 22. Against adoration of 
them, 309. Cassander’s complaint 
of it, 310. The flying from image- 
worship should not make us to run 
into profaneness and _ irreverence 
against God, 312. 

Infallible: two acceptions of it, 140. 
Infallible and firm, how they differ, 
215. The evils ensuing the opinion 
of the Church’s and the Pope’s infal- 
libility, 242, &c. 289, 297, 298. What 
an infallibility of the Church Staple- 
ton is forced to acknowledge, 282— 
284. See Councils, Pope, Church. 

Innocent the Third: his extolling the 
Pope above the Emperor, 226, &c. 

Invocation of Saints, against, 307, 308. 

Trenzeus vindicated, 202, &c. 422, 424. 

Israel a Church after her separation 
from Judah, 167. 

Judge: who to be in controversies 
touching faith and manners, 172,176. 
ὅς. 184,428. What judges of this 
kind the Church hath, 214, 428. Who 
to judge when a General Council 
cannot be had, 218. That no visible 
judge can prevent or remedy all 
heresy and schism, 220. <A visible 
living judge of all controversies, 
whether always necessary, 221, &e. 
Wherein private men may judge, and 
wherein not, 2, 251, 273. 


K. 


Keys, The, to whom given, and how, 
208, 283. 

Kings : custodes utriusque tabule, 228. 
Not to be tyrannized over by the 
Pope, 212. Their supremacy in things 
spiritual, 228. Some Romanists for 
the deposing and killing of them, 
376. 

Knowledge of God, how difficult, 125, 
126. What knowledge needful to breed 
faith, 99, 100. What degree of it is 
necessary to salvation, hard to deter- 


435 


mine, 362,402. The Apostles’ know- 
ledge, how different from that of their 
hearers, 120 note i. 


L. 


Limbus Patrum, against, 338, 364. 

Litere Communicatoriv, what they 
were, and of what use, 223. 

Lombard, Peter, condemned of heresy 
by the Pope, 297. 


M. 


Maldonate answered, 248 note ἡ. 

Manichees: their foul heresy, and what 
stumbled them, 91. 

Manners: corruption in them no suf- 
ficient cause of separation, 163—165. 

Martyrs: of the feasts made of old at 
their oratories, 310. 

Mass: the English Liturgy better and 
safer than it, 342. What manner of 
sacrifice it is made by them of Rome, 
341. 

Matrix and radix in 5, Cyprian not the 
Roman Church, 405, 407, 410. 

Merits: against their condignity, 317. 

Miracles: what proofs of Divine truth, 
86, 121. Not wrought by all the 
writers of Scripture, 121. What kind 
of assent is commonly given to them, 
128. 

Multitude: no sure mark of the truth, 

338. 


INE 


Novatians, their original, 5, 15, 16. 
Novatian: how dealt with by S. Cy- 
prian, 406, 407, &e. 


O. 


Obedience : of that which is due to the 
Church and her Pastors, 263. 

Occham: his true resolution touching 
that which maketh an article of faith, 
428, 

Origen : his errors obtruded by Ruffinus, 
9. He the first founder of Purgatory, 
386, 393. 


Ῥ. 


Papists: their denying possibility of 
salvation to Protestants confuted, and 
their reasons answered, 317—3821. 
Of their going to Protestant churches 
and joining themselves to their as- 
semblies, 416. 

Parents: their power over their chil- 
dren, 177. 


436 


Parliaments: what matters they treat 
of and decree, 234, 235. 

Pastors lawfully sent, what assistance 
promised to them, 108—111.. Their 
embassy, of what authority, 112. 

Patriarchs all alike supreme, 189, 190, 
198. No appeal from them, 189, 
190. 

People, the unlearned of them saved by 
the simplicity of faith, 179. 

Perfidia, the different significations of 
it, 6, 7, 10. 

Peter, 8.: of Christ’s prayer for him, 
182, 209, 210. Of his primacy, pre- 
eminency, and power, 205, &c. 206, 
256. In what sense the Church is 
said to be built upon him, 207. That 
he fell, but not from the faith, 209, 
210. Whether he were universal 
pastor, 212. The highest power eccle- 
siastical, how given to him, and how 
to the rest of the Apostles, 185, 420. 

Pope not infallible, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 21, 
104, 105, 210, 248. How improbable 
and absurd it is to say he is so, 297, 
298, ὅσο. He made more infallible by 
theRomanists than a General Council, 
292. His infallibility held by some 
against conscience, 297, 298. If he 
had any it were useless, 301. How 
opposed by Alphonsus a Castro, 294, 
295 notes ¥*. The belief and know- 
ledge of it both of them impossible, 
302, That he may err, and hath erred, 
231. That he may err as Pope, 297. 
Preferred by some before a General 
Council, 292. Not monarch of the 
Church, 222. He hath nota negative 
voice in Councils, 427. Made by some 
as infallible without as with a Gene- 
ral Council, 292. His confirmation 
of General Councils, of what avail, 
305. Of his power in France and 
Spain, 222, 223, 231. How much 
greater he is made by some than the 
Emperor, 225, 226, &c. 23%. His 
power slighted by some great princes, 
223, 231. Whether he may be a 
heretic, and, being one, how to be 
dealt with, 209. All his power, pre- 
rogatives, ὅθ. indirectly denied by 
Stapleton, 55. 

Popes: the fall of some of them, and 
the consequents thereof, 165. Of their 
power and principality, 185, 186, &e. 
427. Their subjection to the Em- 
peror, 197, 198. And how lost by the 
Emperor, 199. And how recovered, 
200. Primacy of order granted them 
by Ecclesiastical Constitutions, but 
no principality of power from Christ, 
186. Some of them opposed by the 
African Church, 191. Some of them 
heretics, 211. Some apostates, 296. 


INDEX. 


Some false prophets, 7%. How unfit 
judges of controversies, 276, 277, 428. 
The lewd lives of many of them, 293. 
Pope Liberius: his clear testimony 
against the Pope’s infallibility, 295. 

Prayer: what requisite that it may be 
heard, 214, 261—263. Prayer for the 
dead, that it presupposeth not purga- 
tory, 385. 

Preachers: how their preaching to be 
esteemed of, 113. None since the 
Apostles infallible, 395. 

Precisians: their opposition to lawful 
ceremonies occasioned by the Ko- 
manists, 312. That there be of them 
in the Roman Church no less than in 
the Protestant, 152. Their agreement 
in many things, 113. 

Princes: the moderation and equity of 
all that are good, 176. The power of 
sovereign princes in matters eccle- 
siastical, 188. ΑἹ] of the Clergy sub- 
ject to them, 228. 

Prophecy: the spirit of it not to be 
attained by study, 278. 

Protestants: why so called, 152. Of 
their departing from the errors of the 
Roman Church, 150, 152. On what 
terms invited by Rome to a General 
Council, 159, 160. Their charitable 
grant of possibility of salvation in the 
Roman Church, met with uncharita- 
bleness by the Roman party, 314, 316, 
317. They that deny possibility of 
salvation to them confuted, 318. Their 
faith sufficient to salvation, 363 
note Y. 

Purgatory: not thought on by any 
Father within the three first hundred 
years, 385. Not presupposed by 
prayer for the dead, 7b. Origen the 
first founder of it, 386,393. Proofs 
of it examined, 7b. The purgatories 
mentioned by the Fathers different 
from that believed by Rome, 388, 389. 
The Fathers alleged for it cleared, 
386, &c. The Papists, their blas- 
phemous assertion touching the ne- 
cessity of believing it, 394. Bellar- 
mine’s contradiction touching the 
beginning of it, 393. 


R. 


Reason, not excluded or blemished by 
grace, 87. The chief use of it, 91. 
What place it hath in the proof of 
divine supernatural truths, 71, 88. 
How high it can go in proving the 
truth of Christian religion, 89, 280. 

Reformation: in what ease it is lawful 
for a particular Church to reform her- 
self, 166, &c. and to publish any thing 














INDEX. 


that is Catholic in faith or manners, 
168, 185. Examples of it, 171—178. 
Reformation by Protestants how to 
be judged of, 172. Faults incident 
to reformation and reformers of reli- 
gion, 173. Who the chief hinderers 
of a general reformation, 174. Re- 
formation of the Church of England 
justified, 194. The manner of it, 173. 
What place princes have in the re- 
formation of the Church, 172, 173. 

Religion, Christian, how the truth of it 
proved by the ancients, 89. The pro- 
pagation of it, and the firmness where 
it is once received, 91. The evil of 
believing it in one sort and practis- 
ing it in another, 415, 416. Yet this 
taught by some Jesuits and Romish 
priests, 416. One Christian religion 
of Protestants and Romanists, though 
they differ in it, 417. Private men’s 
opinions in religion not to beesteemed 
the Church’s, 54. Religion as it is 
professed in the Church of England, 
nearest, of any Church now being, to 
the primitive Church, 417. 

Resurrection: what believed by all 
Christians, what by some heretics 
denied, 343, 344. 

Revelation, private, in what case to be 
admitted, 88. 

Revelation, divine,the necessity of 10,128, 

Rhenanus, B. purged on behalf of Rome, 
408 note ¥. 

Ridley, B. his full confession of the 
Real Presence, 330. His conviction 
of Archbishop Cranmer’s judgment 
touching it, 331. 

Romans: who truly such, and their true 
privilege, 6. Rome: her preeter- and 
super-structures in the faith, 11. She 
and Spain compared in their two 
monarchies, 232. Heresies both be- 
gun and maintained in her, 15. 
Wherein she hath erred, 22. Whether 
impossible for the apostolic see to be 


removed thence, 22, 23. That she 
may apostatize, 23. Her definitions 
of things not necessary, 38. She the 


chief hindrance of a general reforma- 
tion, 174. Of her pretended sove- 
reignty, and the bad effects of it, 176, 
&e. What principality and power 
she hath, and whence, 186, 194, &e. 
205. She not the head of the Chureh, 
nor did all Churches depend on her, 
189—191, 203. That she hath kept 
nor faith nor unity inviolated,425,426. 
Whether all Christians be bound to 
agree with her in faith, 203. And in 
what case they are so, 204, 205. The 
ancient bounds of her jurisdiction, 
203. Possibility of salvation in her, 
and to whom, 314, 333, 349, &c. The 


437 


danger of living and dying in her 
communion, 331, 334, 336, 337. Her 
rigour and cruelty beyond that of 
schismatical Israel, 332. Her funda- 
mental errors, of what nature, 355. 
The Catholic Church her head and 
root, not she of it, 410, &e. 

Roman see: in what case a particular 
Church may make canons without 
consulting it, 169,170, 185. Roman- 
ists, their cunning dealing with their 
converts in fiert, 145. Of their call- 
ing for a free hearing, 163. Their 
agreement with the Donatists in con- 
tracting the Church to their side, 333. 
Their danger in different respects 
lesser or greater than that of the 
Donatists, 335. 

Ruffinus, his pernicious cunning, 10. 
His dissent from the Roman Church, 
17. Branded by the Pope with he- 
resy, 18. His words explained, 14, 
sy, AL 


5. 


Sacraments: against the necessity of 
his intention who administers them, 
302, 809, &e. 341, 364. 

Sacrilege and schism usually go toge- 
ther, 174 note P. 

Saints: against the invocation of them, 
307. They are made by Bellarmine 
to be nwmina, and in some sort our 
redeemers, 308 note ™. 

Salvation : controversies amongst the Ro- 
manists about the certainty of it, 57. 

Schism: the heinousness of it, 165. 
Who the cause of it at this day, 150, 
153, 213. The continuance of it, 
whence, 162. 

Schismatical Church: to live in one 
and to communicate in the schism, 
how different, 331. The Protestants, 
their leaving Rome no schism, 213. 
Of the schism of Israel, and those that 
lived there in the time of it, 167, 331. 

Science, supreme, what, 136, 137. 

Scotus righted, 35. 

Scripture : that it was received and hath 
continued uncorrupt,137. What books 
make up the canon of it, 17. All 
parts of it alike firm, not alike fun- 
damental, 47,48. That it is the Word 
of God, is a prime principle of faith, 
51, &c. 131, 132,139. The sufficiency 
Of it, Gl, 132) 133, &c. 141. How 
known to be God’s word, 71, ἕο. Of 
the circular probation of Scripture by 
tradition, and tradition by Scripture, 
70,130. The different ways of prov- 
ing it, 71. It isa higher proof than 
the Church’s tradition, 72. The tes- 
timony proving it must be divine and 


438 


infallible, 78, 81,85. Whether it can 
be known to be God’s word by its 
own light, 82. And that the Roman 
Church, by her own tenets, ought so 
to hold, 83. What the chief and 
what the first inducement to the cre- 
dibility of it, 96, 97, 103, 114, 115, 
120. The Divine light thereof, and 
what light the natural man sees in it, 
97, 98. Confirmation by double di- 
vine authority, 98,115. What mea- 
sure of light is or can be required in 
it, 99. As nowset forth and printed, 
of what authority it is, 106, 112. 
Scripture and tradition confirm either 
other mutually, not equally, 112. 
The way of the Ancient Church of 
proving Scripture to be God’s word, 
114. Four proofs brought for it, 7b. 
The seeming contradiction of Fathers 
touching Scripture and tradition, re- 
conciled, 116, 117. Belief of Scrip- 
ture the true grounds of it, 124, 125, 
128. Rules of finding the true sense 
of it, 75. How rich a storehouse it is, 
129. The writers of it, what certainty 
we have who they were, 120. Proof 
of its Divine authority, to whom ne- 
cessary, 131. Infallible assurance of 
that authority by human proof, 139. 
That it is a rule sufficient and infal- 
lible, 218—220. Three things ob- 
servable in that rule, 219. Its pre- 
rogative above General Councils, 267. 
Compared with Church definitions, 
275. What assurance that we have 
the true sense of Scriptures, Councils, 
Fathers, &c., 366, 367, &c. Some 
books of Scripture anciently doubted 
of, and some not canonical received 
by some into the canon, 82. 

Separation, actual and causal, 159. For 
what one Church may lawfully sepa- 
rate from another, 156, 163, 164. Cor- 
ruption in manners no sufficient cause 
of separation, 164. What separation 
necessary, 150. 

Sermons exalted to too great a height 
both by Jesuits and Precisians, 113. 
Their true worth and use, 7b. 

Simanca[s]: his foul tenet concerning 
faith given to heretics, 160 note *. 

Sixtus Senensis: his doubting of some 
of the apocryphal books received by 
the Council of Trent, 372. 

Socinianism: the monster of heresies, 
344. 

Spalato, Archbishop of, made to speak 
for Rome, 394. 

Spirit, of the private, 84, 273. 

Succession: what a one a note of the 
Church, 423, 424. Not to be found 
in Rome, 425. Stapleton, his incon- 
stancy concerning it, 424, 425. 


INDEX. 


Te 


Testimony of the Church, whether di- 
vine or human, 77. The testimony of 
it alone cannot make good the infal- 
libility of the Scripture, 76, 77. 

Theophilus of Alexandria, his worth, 
and his violent spirit, 196. 

Traditions : what to be approved, 51, 62, 
79. Tradition and Scripture proofs of 
the same things, 69. It not a sufficient 
proof of Scripture, 72. It and God's 
unwritten word, not terms convertible, 
80, Tradition of the present Church, 
what uses it hath, 93, 95, 98, 141. 
How it differeth from the tradition 
of the Primitive Church, 95,111. Tra- 
dition of the Church mere human 
authority, 104, What tradition the 
Fathers meant, by saying we have the 
Scriptures by tradition, 116, 117. 
Tradition apostolical, the necessity 
and use of it, 7b. ‘Tradition how 
known before Scripture, 135. What 
most likely to be a tradition aposto- 
lical, 69, 70. The danger of leaning 
too much upon tradition, 137 note %. 

Transubstantiation, Against, 306, 321, 
322, 329, 395. Suarez his plain con- 
fession, that it is not of necessary be- 
lief, 321. Cajetan and Alphonsus a 
Castro, their opinion concerning it, 
377 notes ‘ &. Scandal taken by A ver- 
roés at the doctrine of it, 365 note 5. 
See Eucharist. 

True, and right, their difference, 1438. 


Υ͂. 


Victor, Pope, taxed by Irenezeus, 202. 

Vincentius Lirinensis cleared, 45. 

Union of Christendom, how little re- 
garded, and how hindered by Rome, 
341, 362. 

Unity: the causes of the breaches thereof, 
401, &c. Not that unity in the faith 
amongst the Romanists which they 
so much boast of, 370, 371. 

Universal Bishop: a title condemned 
by S. Gregory, yet usurped by his 
successors, 198, 199. 


W. 


Word of God: that it may be written 
and unwritten, 78. Why written, 79. 
Uttered mediately or immediately, 
78. Many of God’s unwritten words 
not delivered to the Church, 80, 81. 
See Scripture and Tradition. 

Worth of men, of what weight in proy- 
ing truth, 336, 337. 


A TABLE OF THE PLACES OF SCRIPTURE 


GENESIS. 
CH. VER. PAGE 
Me 16. 231. 
DEUTERONOMY. 
iy. 2 38. 
xiil. 1—3 122; 
ἜΧΙ 19 ΤΠ 
xvii 18 229 
I. SAMUEL. 
ili. 19: 177 note ". 
Vili. 8, ὅ. ἘΠῚ: 
I. KINGS. 
xii. ie 167. 
xiii. 110 992. 
xvii 331. 
χῖχ. 18. 382. 
Il. KINGS. 
111. -- Π0 7. 99}: 
xxiii -- 172 note®, 229. 
II. CHRONICLES. 
XOXIION: 4, 172 note", 229. 
PSALMS. 
if 2. 129 note &. 
PROVERBS. 
1b 8. 287. 
XV. 20. 287. 
vi. 20, 22. 287, 
ISAIAH. 
xliv. et passim. 83. 
1111, al 29; 
JEREMIAH. 
li. 19. 373. 
Vv. Sie 137 note % 
OG 7, &e. 123: 
ΧΧΧΥΤ ἡ 123 note °. 


WHICH ARE EXPLAINED OR VINDICATED. 


CH. 
ix. 
Xii. 
Xvi. 
XVi. 
Xvi. 
XViii. 
XViii. 
XVlil. 
XXil. 


XXViii. 
XXViii. 
XXViii. 
XXViii. 


ΧΧΥΪ. 


5. MATTHEW. 

VER, PAGE 

12, 68 note ©. 

22. 90, &e. 

We 91, 

18. 13, 180, 266. 

19. 55, 208. 

18. 208. 

20. 254, 260. 

ΤΠ 287, 518. 

Brie 403. 

UG) 90. 109. 

Pal 181. 

29. 212 note “ὃ 

20. 254. 

27. 288, 289. 
5. MARK. 

14. 69. 

ὍΣ UPR 
5. LUKE. 

ΤῸΝ 108. 

48, 402 note *. 

35. 55. 

23: 125. 

32. 182. 

32. 209, 254. 

47. 346 note Y. 
5. JOHN 

47. 188. 

70. 425. 

29. 138. 

4, 116. 

41. 99. 

42. ΠΣ 

16. 110, 254. 

26. 189, 255. 

13. 110, 254. 

14, 255. 

3. 197. 

3D. 120 note i. 

23: 208. 

15. 55, 212. 

él. 102 note 5. 


19. 849 note °. 


440 INDEX OF TEXTS. 


ACTS 
cH. VER, PAGE 
iv. τ; 403. 
vi. 9. 143. 
Ky 29. 143. 
ΠΟΊΩΝ, 17: 148. 
ΧΕ 20. 346 note ¥. 
XV. 28. 83, 254, 263, 291. 
ROMANS. 
Vv. 15. 40. 
i. 20. 72, 125 note 5. 
1, 8. 153 note &. 
i 8. 378. 
Xe 10. 416. 
Xx. 14; 15. 395. 
111. 4. 397. 
Xi. 16. 157. 
xiii. ahs 227. 


I. CORINTHIANS. 


1 10. 400. 

ii. as 353. 

ili. De 212 note %. 

11]. ΤΣ 251. 

li. 14, 87 note 8. 

v. 5. 287. 

xi. if 109 note 4. 

Xi. Dies 288. 

χὶ. 19. 401. 

xii. 3, 4. 84 note *. 

xii. 10. 122 note ™. 

xii. 28. 420 note *. 
GALATIANS. 

ili. 19. 78 note f. 
EPHESIANS. 

li. 20. 257. 

iv. Ld. 420 and note *. 

iv. 19. 420. 

v. 2. 339 note ». 

γ. 27. 288. 


END OF 


iv. 
ii. 


ἘΠῚ: 


VOL. 


II. THESSALONIANS. 


VER. PAGE 

-- 72 ποίο ". 
9. 122. 

LO: 83. 


L. TIMOTHY, 


15. 40. 
20. 80. 


II. TIMOTHY. 


14. 80. 
16. 126 note *. 
HEBREWS. 
ey 212 note *. 
12. 339 note ἢ". 
6. 50, 403. 
Ie 100, 119. 
9. 171: 
lige 287: 
5. JAMES. 
20. 170. 
I. S. PETER. 
3h 105. 


II. 8. PETER. 


16. 128. 
I. 8. JOHN. 
2. 50. 
19. 349 note “. 
5. JUDE. 
Be 83, 372. 
REVELATION. 
il, Sie 


a τ ῆξιο ΞΟ ν ΕΘΘΕ ΒΕ ἜΘ αν» τι." ---- --. 
R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL. 





BOOKS 


PUBLISHED BY 


PARKER AND CO. 
OXFORD, AND 6 SOUTHAMPTON-STREET, STRAND, LONDON. 





Theological, Xe. 


REV. J. WORDSWORTH, M.A. 

THE ONE RELIGION: Truth, Holiness, and Peace desired by the 
Nations, and revealed by Jesus Christ. EIGHT LECTURES delivered before 
the University of Oxford, in the Year 1881. By JoHn WorpswortnH, M.A., 
Tutor of Brasenose College; Prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral, and Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 

UNIVERSITY SERMONS ON GOSPEL SUBJECTS. By the 


Rev. Joun Worpswortn, M.A. _ Fcap., cloth, 2s. 6d. 


REV. A. H. HORE, M.A. 


EIGHTEEN CENTURIES OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND. 
By the Rev. A. H. Hore, M.A., Trinity College, Oxford. 712 pp. Demy 8vo., 
cloth, 15s. 

REV. CANON HOLE. 

HINTS TO PREACHERS, wire SERMONS anp ADDRESSES. 

By S. Reynotps Hote, Canon of Lincoln. Second Edition, Post 8vo., cloth, 6s. 
REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. 

WHAT IS OF FAITH AS TO EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT? 
In Reply to Dr. Farrar’s Challenge in his ‘‘ Eternal Hope,’? 1879. By the late 
Rev. E. B. Pusry, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon of Christ Church. 
Fourth Thousand. 8vo., cloth, 286 pp., 3s. 6d. 

REV. E. F. WILLIS, M.A. 

THE WORSHIP OF THE OLD COVENANT CONSIDERED 
MORE ESPECIALLY 1n RELATION Τὸ ΤΗΑῚΤ oF THE NEW. By the 
Rev. E. F. Wituis, M.A. Post 8vo., cloth, 5s. 

ARCHDEACON DENISON. 

NOTES OF MY LIFE, 1805—1878. By Gerorck AntHony 
Denison, Vicar of East Brent, 1845; Archdeacon of Taunton, 1851. Third 
Edition, 8vo., cloth, price 12s. 

FRANCIS PAGET, M.A. 

CONCERNING SPIRITUAL GIFTS. Three Addresses to Can- 
didates for Holy Orders in the Diocese of Ely. Together with a Sermon. By 
Francis Pacret, M.A., Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford; Examining 
Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Ely. Fceap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 

THE REDEMPTION OF WORK. ADDRESSES spoken in St. 
Paul’s Cathedral, by Francis Pacet, M.A., Senior Student of Christ Church, 
Oxford. 52 pp. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 

BISHOP OF BARBADOS. 
SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS. By Joun 


ΜΊΤΟΗΙΝΒΟΝ, late Bishop of Barbados. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. 
THE LATE BISHOP WILBERFORCE. 
SERMONS PREACHED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. With a 
Preface by the Lord Bishop of Ety. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 
(1182. 4.10.] 


2 THEOLOGICAL WORKS, §c. (continued). 





THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE SUCCES- 
SIVE REVISIONS OF THE BOOK OF COMMON. PRAYER. By 
JaMES ParKER, Hon. M.A. Oxon. Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s. 

THE FIRST PRAYER-BOOK OF EDWARD VI., COMPARED 
with the Successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer; with a Concordance 
and Index to the Rubrics in the several editions. By the same Author. Crown 
8vo., cloth, 12s. 

A Cuear EDITION OF 

THE FIRST PRAYER-BOOK as issued by the Authority of the 
Parliament of the Second Year of King Edward VI. 24mo., limp cloth, Is. 

SECOND PRAYER-BOOK OF EDWARD VI. Issued 1552. 24mo., 
limp cloth, 15. 

THE LATE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. 

DANIEL THE PROPHET. Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity 
School of the University of Oxford. With a new Preface. By E.B. Pusey, D.D., 
&c. Seventh Thousand. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 

THE MINOR PROPHETS; with a Commentary Explanatory and 
Practical, and Introductions to the Several Books. 4to., cloth, 31s. 6d. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE, as contained in 
the Fathers from the death of St.John the Evangelist to the 4th General 
Council. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 

THE REAL PRESENCE, the Doctrine of the English Church, with 
a vindication of the reception by the wicked and of the Adoration of our Lord 
Jesus Christ truly present. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. 8vo., 6s. 


THE LATE REV. J, KEBLE, M.A. 
STUDIA SACRA. COMMENTARIES on the Introductory Verses 


of St. John’s Gospel, and on a Portion of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans; with 
other Theological Papers by the late Rev.Joun Kesie, M.A. 8vo., cl., 10s. 6d. 

OCCASIONAL PAPERS AND REVIEWS. By the late Rev. 
Joun Keste, Author of ‘‘ The Christian Year.’”? Demy 8vo., cloth extra, 12s. 

LETTERS OF SPIRITUAL COUNSEL AND GUIDANCE. By 
the late Rev. J. ΚΈΒιε, M.A., Vicar of Hursley. Edited by R. F. Wizson, 
M.A., Vicar of Rownhams, &c. Fourth Edition. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s. 

OUTLINES OF INSTRUCTIONS OR MEDITATIONS FOR 
THE CHURCH’S SEASONS. By Joun Kesuie, M.A. Edited, with 
a Preface, by R. F. Witson, M.A. Crown 8vo., toned paper, cloth, 5s. 


THE LATE BISHOP OF BRECHIN. 


AN EXPLANATION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 
With an Epistle Dedicatory to the Rev. E. B. Pussy, D.D. By A. P. 
Forses, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. Second Edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s. 

A SHORT EXPLANATION OF THE NICENE CREED, for the 
Use of Persons beginning the Study of Theology. By ALEXANDER PENROSE 
Forses, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY. 


THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE 
BODY OF CHRIST. The Bampton Lectures for 1868. By Grorce Moserty, 
D.C.L., Lord Bishop of Salisbury. 3rd Edit. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 

SERMONS ON THE BEATITUDES, with others mostly preached 
before the University of Oxford. By the same. Third Edition. Crown 8vo., 
cloth, 7s. 6d. 

REV. WILLIAM BRIGHT, D.D. 

A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, from the Edict of Milan, a.p. 

313, to the Council of Chalcedon, a.p.451. Second Edition. Post 8yo., 10s. θά. 


oe ee 


THEOLOGICAL WORKS, &c. (continued). 3 





CATENA AUREA. <A Commentary on the Four Gospels, collected 


out of the Works of the Fathers by S. Tuomas Aquinas. Uniform with the 
Library of the Fathers. Re-issue. Complete in 6 vols. 8vo., cloth, £2 2s. 


THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 
TO 5. MARK Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established, 
by Joun W. Bureon, B.D., Dean of Chichester. With Facsimiles of Codex αὶ 
and Codex L. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


THE EXPLANATION or tut APOCALYPSE by VENERABLE 
BEDA, Translated by the Rev. EDW. MARSHALL, M.A,, F.S.A., formerly 
Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 180 pp. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 


A COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES AND GOSPELS IN 
THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. Extracted from Writings of the 
Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, anterior to the Division of the East and 
West. With an Introductory Notice by the Dean or Sr. Paut’s. In Two 
Vols., Crown 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE; or, An Inquiry con- 


cerning the True Manner of Understanding and Using the Order for Morning and 
Evening Prayer, and for the Administration of the Holy Communion in the 
English Church. By the late Ven. Puitiep FREEMAN, Archdeacon of Exeter. 
A New Edition. 2 vols., 8vo., cloth, 16s. 


THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRIFICE AND 
PARTICIPATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. By Georce Trevor, 
D.D., M.A., Canon of York; Rector of Beeford. Second Edition, revised and 
enlarged. Crown 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


THE HISTORY OF CONFIRMATION. By Witt1am Jackson, M.A., 
Queen’s College, Oxford; Vicar of Heathfield, Sussex. Crown 8vo., cl., 2s. 6d. 


CHRISTIANITY AS TAUGHT BY S. PAUL. The Bampton 
Lectures for 1870. To which is added an Appendix of the Continuous Sense 
of S. Paul’s Epistles; with Notes and Metalegomena. By the Rev. W. J. 
Tgons, D.D., ἄς. Second Edition, with New Preface, 8vo., with Map, cloth, 9s. 


CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY. The Bamp- 
ton Lectures for 1873. By the Rev. 1. Gregory Smitu, M.A. Second Edition, 
Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 


APOLLOS; or, THE WAY OF GOD. A Plea for the Religion of 


Scripture. By A. CLEVELAND Coxe, Bishop of New York. Crown 8vo., cl., 5s. 


DISCOURSES ON PROPHECY. In which are considered its Struc- 
ture, Use, and Inspiration. By Joun Davison, B.D. A New Edition. 
8vo., cloth, 9s. 


BEDE’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH 
NATION. A New Translation by the Rev. L. Grptry, M.A., Chaplain of 
St. Nicholas’, Salisbury. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


RICHARD BAXTER ON THE SACRAMENTS: Holy Orders, 


Holy Baptism, Confirmation, Absolution, Holy Communion. 18mo., cloth, 18. 


4 ANCIENT DOCTRINAL TREATISES, ὅτ. 


-.»»ομπ 


THE CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS ECCLESIASTICAL OF 
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, Referred to their Original Sources, and 
Illustrated with Explanatory Notes. By the late Mackenzie E. C. Watcorrt, 
B.D., F.S.A. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 


A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED, by 





the Rev. D. WaTerRLaNnD, D.D. Edited by the Rev.J. R. Kinc, M.A. Fcap. 


8vo., cloth, 5s. 


THE PASTORAL RULE OF ST.GREGORY. Sancti Gregorii 
Pape Regule Pastoralis Liber, ad Johannem Episcopum Civitatis Ravenne. 
With an English Translation. By the Rev. H. R. Bramvey, M.A., Fellow of 
Magdalen College, Oxford. Fceap. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 

THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH and Canons of 


Discipline of the first four General Councils of the Universal Church. In Greek 


and English. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 


DE FIDE ET SYMBOLO: Documenta quedam nee non Aliquorum 


SS. Patrum Tractatus. 


Edidit Carotus A. Heurttey, S.T.P., Dom. Mar- 


garete Prelector, et Audis Christi Canonicus. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s. 6d. 

5. AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS, Episcopus Hipponensis, de Catechi- 
zandis Rudibus, de Fide Rerum que non videntur, de Utilitate Credendi. In 
Usum Juniorum. Edidit C. Marriort, 8.T.B., Olim Coll. Oriel. Socius. New 


Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 


ANALECTA CHRISTIANA, In usum Tironum. Excerpta, Epi- 


stole, &c., ex Eusespit, &c.; S.Ienatit Epistole ad Smyrnzos et ad Poly- 
carpum; E. 5. CLemMentTis ALEXANDRI Padagogo excerpta; 85. ATHANASII 


Sermo contra Gentes. 


S.T.B.  8vo., 10s. 6d. 


Edidit et Annotationibus illustravit C. Marriorr, 


8. PATRIS NOSTRI S. ATHANASIT ARCHIEPISCOPI ALEX- 
ANDRIZ DE INCARNATIONE VERBI, ejusque Corporali ad nos Ad- 
ventu. With an English Translation by the Rev. J. Ripcway, B.D., Hon. 


Canon of Christ Church. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, ds. 





OXFORD SERIES OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS. 
Feap. 8vo., printed in Red and Black, on toned paper. 


The Imitation of Christ. 


FOUR BOOKS. By Thomas a Kem- 

Pts. Cloth, 4s.—Pocket Edit., 32mo., cl., ls. 
Andrewes’ Devotions. 

DEVOTIONS. By the Right Rev. 
Father in God, LAaunceLot ANDREWES. 
Translated from the Greek and Latin, and 
arranged anew. Antique cloth, 5s. 

Taylor’s Holy Living. 

THE RULE AND EXERCISES 
OF HOLY LIVING. By BisHor JERRMY 
Taytor. Antique cloth, 4s.—Pocket Edi- 
tion, 32mo., cloth, 15. 

Taylor’s Holy Dying. 

THE RULE AND EXERCISES 
OF HOLY DYING. By BisHor JEREMY 
Taytor. Antique cloth, 4s.—Pocket Edi- 
tion, 32mo., cloth, 15. 

Taylor’s Golden Grove. 

THE GOLDEN GROVE; a Choice 
Manual, containing what is to be Believed, 
Practised, and Desired, or Prayed for. By 
Bishop JereMy Taytor. Printed uniform 
with ‘‘ Holy Living and Holy Dying.” An- 
tique cloth, 3s. 6d. 

Sutton’s Meditations. 

GODLY MEDITATIONS UPON 
THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE 
LORD’S SUPPER. By CuRIsTOPHER SutT- 
von, D.D., late Prebend of Westminster. 
A new Edition. Antique cloth, ds. 





Laud’s Devotions. 


THE PRIVATE DEVOTIONS of 
Dr. Witi1am Laup, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, and Martyr. Antique cloth, ds. 


Spinckes’ Devotions. 


TRUE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
MAN’S COMPANION IN THE CLOSET; 
or, a complete Manual of Private Devotions, 
collected from the Writings of eminent Di- 
vines of the Church of England. Antique 
cloth, 4s. 

Ancient Collects. 


ANCIENT COLLECTS anno OTHER 
PRAYERS. Selected for Devotional use 
from various Rituals. By Wm. Bricurt, 
D.D. Antique cloth, 5s. 


Devout Communicant. 
THE DEVOUT COMMUNICANT, 


exemplified in his Behaviour before, at, and 
after the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper: 
Practically suited to all the Parts of that 
Solemn Ordinance. 7th Edition, revised. 
Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 4s. 


EIKQN BASIAIKH. 

THE PORTRAITURE OF HIS 
SACRED MAJESTY KING CHARLES I. 
in his Solitudes and Sufferings. New Edition, 
with Preface by C.M. PHiLtirmore [On the 
evidence that the book was written by 


Charles I., and not by Gauden]. Antique 
cloth, ds. 


a 





DEVOTIONAL. 5 








MEDITATIONS ON THE GOSPELS FOR EVERY DAY. By 
Duquesne. Price 3s.6d. each Volume. 
Vol. I. Advent. Vol. II. Lent. Vols. III. and IV. in preparation. 


THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST IN GLORY: Daily Meditations, 
from Easter Day to the Wednesday after Trinity Sunday. By Novgr. Trans- 
lated from the French, and adapted to the Use of the English Church. Third 
Thousand. 12mo., cloth, ds. 


A GUIDE FOR PASSING ADVENT HOLILY. By Aveitron. 


Translated from the French, and adapted to the use of the English Church. 
New Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, ds. 


A GUIDE FOR PASSING LENT HOLILY. By Avrition. 
Translated from the French, and adapted to the use of the English Church. 
Fourth Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. 


THE PASTOR IN HIS CLOSET; or, A Help to the Devotions 


of the Clergy. By Joun Armstrone, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Grahamstown. 
Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 


DAILY STEPS TOWARDS HEAVEN;; or, Practical Thoughts on 
the Gospel History, for every day in the year. With Titles and Characters of 
Christ. 32mo., roan, 2s.6d.—Large type edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. 


Uniform with above. 

THE HOURS; being Prayers for the Third, Sixth, and Ninth 
Hours; with a Preface, and Heads of Devotion for the Day. Seventh Edition. 
82mo., in parchment wrapper, ls. 

ANNUS DOMINI. A Prayer for each Day of the Year, founded on 
a Text of Holy Scripture (addressed to the Second Person in the Trinity, and 
therefore supplementary to other devotions). By Curistina G. Rossertt. 
32mo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 

PRIVATE PRAYERS FOR A WEEK. Compiled by Wittram 
Bricut, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 96 pp., Feap. 8vo., limp 
cloth, 15. 6d. 

DEVOTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER HOLY COMMUNION. 
With Prefatory Note by Kesie. Sixth Edition, in red and black, on toned 
paper, 32mo., cloth, 2s.—With the Service, 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 

MEDITATIONS FOR THE FORTY DAYS OF LENT. With 
a Prefatory Notice by the ARcHBIsHOP OF DUBLIN. 18mo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 

THE EVERY-DAY COMPANION. By the Rev. W. H. Ruiptey, 
M.A., Rector of Hambleden, Bucks. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 

THOUGHTS DURING SICKNESS. By Rozsert Brerr, Author of 
“The Doctrine of the Cross,” &c. Fcap. 8vo., limp cloth, 15. 6d. 

BREVIATES FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE, arranged for use by the 
Bed of Sickness. By the Rev. G. Arpen, M.A., Rector of Winterborne-Came ; 
Domestic Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of Devon. 2nd Hd. Feap. 8vo., 2s. 


DEVOTIONS FOR A TIME OF RETIREMENT AND PRAYER 
FOR THE CLERGY. New Edition, revised. Feap. 8vo., cloth, Is. 


PRAYERS IN USE AT CUDDESDON COLLEGE. Third Edition, 
revised and enlarged. Fcap. 8vo., 2s. 

INSTRUCTIONS ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST, AND DEVO- 
TIONS FOR HOLY COMMUNION, being Part V. of the Clewer Mannals, 
by Rev. T. T. Carrer, M.A., late Rector of Clewer. 18mo., cloth, 2s. 

THE SERVICE-BOOK OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 


arranged according to the New Table of Lessons. Crown 8vo., roan, 12s. ; 
and in various bindings. 


6 SERMONS, §c. 
SERMONS, &c. 
PAROCHIAL SERMONS. By the late E. B. Puszy, D.D. Vol. I. 
From Advent to Whitsuntide. Seventh Edit. 8vo., cl., 6s. Vol. II., 8vo., cl., 6s. 


(Se Vol. III. (Reprinted from ‘“ Plain Sermons by 
Contributors to Tracts for the Times.’’) Revised Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


PAROCHIAL SERMONS preached and printed on Various Occa- 
sions, 1832—1850. By the late E. B. PUSEY, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


SERMONS preached before the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD be- 
tween A.D. 1843 to 1855, &c. Vol. I. By the late E. B. Pusry, D.D. 8vo., cl,. 6s. 

----- ---- - 1859 to 1872. Vol. II. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 

1864 to 1876, &c. Vol. III. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


LENTEN SERMONS preached chiefly to Young Men at the Univer- 
sities, between A.D. 1868 and 1874. By the late E. B. Puszy, D.D. 8vo., cl, 6s. 


ILLUSTRATIONS OF FAITH. Eight Plain Sermons, by the 
late Rey. Epwarp Monro. Fceap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 


Uniform, and by the same Author, 
PLAIN SERMONS ON THE Book oF Com- | HISTORICAL AND PRACTICAL SERMONS 








MON PRAYER. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. ON THE SUFFERINGS AND RESUR- 
SpRMons ΟΝ New TresTAMENT CHARAC- RECTION OF OUR LorD. 2 vols., Fcap. 
TERS. Feap. 8vo., 4s. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 


CHRISTIAN SEASONS.—Short and Plain Sermons for every Sunday 


and Holyday throughout the Year. 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 10s. Second 
Series, 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 1058. 


SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING, following the 
Order of the Christian Seasons. By the Rev. J. W. Burcon, B.D. 2 vols., 
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 8s.—Second Series, 2 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 8s. 


PAROCHIAL SERMONS AND SERMONS FOR FASTS AND 
FESTIVALS. By the late Bp. ArnMstrone. Feap. 8vo., 5s. each volume. 


SERMONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. By J. Kents, M.A. 


ADVENT TO CHRIsTMAS. 8vo., c]., 6s. | EASTER TO ASCENSION Day. 8vo., 


CHRISTMAS AND EPIPHANY. §8vo., cloth, 6s. 

cloth, 6s. ASCENSION Day TO TRINITY SUNDAY 
SEPTUAGESIMA TO LENT. Svo., cl., 63. inclusive. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 
AsH- WEDNESDAY TO Hoty WEEK. | Trinity, Part I. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 

8vo., cloth, 6s. Trinity, Part II. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 
Hoty WEEK. 8vo., cloth, 6s. Satnts’ Days. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


On Various Occasions. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


VILLAGE SERMONS ON THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. By 
the late Rev. Joun Kesie, M.A. 8vo., cloth, ds. 


THE AWAKING SOUL, as Sketched in the 130th Psalm. Ad- 


dresses delivered in Lent, 1877. By E. R. Wirserrorce, M.A. [the Rt. Rev. 
the Lord Bishop of Newcastle]. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d. 


OXFORD LENT SERMONS, 1857-60, 63, 65-69, 70-71. Cloth, 


5s. each. 


XX. SHORT ALLEGORICAL SERMONS. By B.K. W. Pzanss, 
M.A., and W. A. Gray, M.A. Sixth Edition, Fcap. 8vo., sewed, 15. 


SERMONS AND ESSAYS ON THE APOSTOLICAL AGE. By 


the late Very Rev. ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. Third Edition, revised. 
Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. Gd. 





ENGLISH DIVINES. 7 


GHorks of the Standard Gnoglish Divines, 
PUBLISHED IN THE LIBRARY OF ANGLO-CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, 


AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES IN CLOTH. 


ANDREWES’ (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 11 vols., 8vo., £3 7s. 
Tur Sermons. (Separate.) 5 vols., £1 15s. 
BEVERIDGE’S (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 12 vols., 8vo., £4 45. 
Tue Enetish Turotocican Works. 10 vols., £3 10s. 


BRAMHALL’S (ABP.) WORKS, WITH LIFE AND LETTERS, &c. 
5 vols., 8vo., £1 15s. (Vol. 2 cannot be sold separately.) 


BULI’S (ΒΡ. HARMONY ON JUSTIFICATION. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. 
—__—___— DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED. 2 vols., 10s. 
JUDGMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 5s. 
COSIN’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. 5 vols., 8vo., £1 10s. 
CRAKANTHORP'S DEFENSIO ECCLESLE ANGLICAN. 
vo., 7S. 


FRANK’S SERMONS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. 
FORBES’ CONSIDERATIONES MODEST. 2 vols., 8vo., 12s. 
GUNNING’S PASCHAL, OR LENT FAST. 8vo., 6s. 


HAMMOND’S PRACTICAL CATECHISM. 8vo., 5s. 
MISCELLANEOUS THEOLOGICAL WORKS. ds. 
THIRTY-ONE SERMONS. 2 Parts. 10s. 

HICKES’S TWO TREATISES ON THE CHRISTIAN PRIEST- 

HOOD. 3 vols., 8vo., 15s. 
JOHNSON’S (JOHN) THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. 
ENGLISH CANONS. 2 vols., 12s. 


LAUD’S (ABP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 7 vols., (9 Parts,) 8vo., 
£2 17s. 


L’ESTRANGE’S ALLIANCE OF DIVINE OFFICES. 8vo., 6s. 
MARSHALL’S PENITENTIAL DISCIPLINE. (This volume 


cannot be sold separate from the complete set.) 


NICHOLSON’S (BP.) EXPOSITION OF THE CATECHISM. (This 


volume cannot be sold separate from the complete set.) 


OVERALL’S (BP.) CONVOCATION-BOOK OF 1606. 8vo., 5s. 


EDARBONE (BP.) VINDICILZ EPISTOLARUM S. IGNATII, 
2 vols. 8vo., 105. 


THORNDIKE’S (HERBERT) THEOLOGICAL WORKS COM- 
PLETE. 6 vols.,(10 Parts,) 8vo., £2 10s. 


WILSON’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. With LIFE, by the 
late Rev. J. Kesue. 7 vols., (8 Parts,) 8vo., £3 3s. 


A complete set, 80 Vols. in 88 Parts, £21. 





8 POETRY, ὅτ. 


—— eee" 


THE AUTHORIZED EDITIONS OF 
Lae ACHRISTIAN WEA 


With the Author’s latest Corrections and Additions. 


NOTICE.—Messrs. Parker are the sole Publishers of the Editions of the 
“Christian Year’? issued with the sanction and under the direction of the 
Author’s representatives. All Editions without their imprint are unauthorized. 


SMALL 4to. Epition. 5. d. 82mo. EDITION. Smid. 
Handsomely printed on toned Cloth boards, gilt edges Pe We 
paper, with red border lines Cloth, limp . : . δ Ὁ 
and initial letters. Cloth 
extra - . 5 - 10 6 48mo. EDITION. 


Cloth, limp . . . 5 OY Ὁ 


Demy 8vo. EpirTion. Roan . ε ὲ : πο ων. 


Cloth . . . 5 a i ὦ 


F FACSIMILE OF THE 151 EpI- 
OoLscaP 8vo. Epirion. TION, with a list of the 


᾿ SES τ ἢ variations from the Origi- 

nal Text which the Author 

24mo. Eprrion. made in later Editions. 
Cloth, red lines. 5 5 ὦ 2 vols., 12mo., boards of 


The above Editions (except the Facsimile of the First Edition) are kept in 
a variety of bindings, which may be ordered through the Trade, or direct from 
the Publishers. The chief bindings are Morocco plain, Morocco Antique, Calf 
Antique, and Vellum, the prices varying according to the style. 


Cloth 


By the same Author. 
LYRA INNOCENTIUM. Thoughts in Verse on Christian Chil- 
ren. Thirteenth Edition. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. 
—— 24mo., cloth, red lines, 3s. 6d. 
48mo. edition, limp cloth, 6d.; cloth boards, 1s. 


MISCELLANEOUS POEMS BY THE REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A., 
Vicar of Hursley. [With Preface by G.M.] Third Edition. Fcap., cloth, 6s. 


THE PSALTER, OR PSALMS OF DAVID: In English Verse. 
Fourth Edition. Fcap., cloth, 6s. 


18mo., cloth, ls. 














The above may also be had in various bindings. 


A CONCORDANCE TO THE ‘CHRISTIAN YEAR.” Feap. 
8vo., toned paper, cloth, 4s. 


MUSINGS ON THE “CHRISTIAN YEAR;” wira GLEANINGS 


From Tuirty Years’ INTERCOURSE WITH THE LATE Rev. J. Kesuz, by CHAR- 
LOTTE M. YONGE; to which are added Recollections of Hursley, by 
FRANCES M. WILBRAHAM. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 


MEMOIR OF THE REV. J. KEBLE, M.A. By Sir J. T. Coxr- 


RIDGE. Fourth and Cheaper Edition. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


THE CHILD’S CHRISTIAN YEAR. Hymns for every Sunday 
and Holyday throughout the Year. Cheap Edition, 18mo., cloth, 1s. 





— ον ὐσνωνα 


CHURCH POETRY, AND PAROCHIAL. 9 


eee 


Church Poetry. 
REV. ISAAC WILLIAMS. 


Uniform Edition, 32mo., cloth, each 2s. 6d. 
THE CATHEDRAL; or, The | THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR. 
Catholic and Apostolic Church in HYMNS From toe PARISIAN 


England. 


THE BAPTISTERY; or, The BREVIARY. 
Way of Eternal Life. THOUGHTS IN PAST YEARS. 


THE SEVEN DAYS OF THE OLD AND NEW CREATION. 
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 
THE BAPTISTERY; or, The Way of Eternal Life. With Plates by 


Boetius a Botswert. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 
BISHOP CLEVELAND COXE. 


CHRISTIAN BALLADS AND POEMS. By Arruvr CLeveLanp 
Coxe, D.D., Bishop of Western New York. A New Edition. Feap. 8vo., 
cloth, 3s. Also selected Poems in a packet, 32mo., ls. 


THE BELLS OF BOTTEVILLE TOWER; A Christmas Story in 
Verse: and other Poems. By Frepertck G. Les, Author of “The Martyrs of 
Vienne and Lyons,” “ Petronilla,”’ &c. Feap. 8vo., with Illustrations, cloth, 4s.6d. 


HYMNS ON THE LITANY, by Apa Camprincz. Fcap. 8vo., cl., 88. 

THE INNER LIFE. Hymns on the ‘Imitation of Christ,” by 
Tuomas A’Kempis; designed especially for Use at Holy Communion. By the 
Author of “ Thoughts from a Girl’s Life,” ὅς. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 


Parochial. 
THE CONFIRMATION CLASS-BOOK: Notes for Lessons, with 


APPENDIX, containing Questions and Summaries for the Use of the Candidates. 
By E. M. Hormes, LL.B. Feap. 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d. 
Also, THE QuEsTIONS AND SUMMARIES separate, 4 sets, 1s. each. 

THE CATECHIST’S MANUAL; with an Introduction by the late 
SAMUEL WILBERFORCE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester. By the same. 
Sixth Thousand, revised. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 5s. 

SUNDAY -SCHOOL EXERCISES, Collected and Revised from 
Manuscripts of Burghclere School-children, under the teaching of the Rev. W. 
R. Barter, late Rector of Highclere and Burghclere; Edited by his Son-in-law, 
the ΒΙΒΗΟΡ or St. ANDREW’s. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. 

A MANUAL OF PASTORAL VISITATION, intended for the Use 
of the Clergy in their Visitation of the Sick and Afflicted. By a Partsu Priest. 
Dedicated, by permission, to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin. Second 
Edition, Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.; roan, 4s. 

SHORT READINGS FOR SUNDAY. By the Author of ‘ Foot- 
prints in the Wilderness.’’ With Twelve Illustrations on Wood. Third Thou- 
sand, Square Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 

FABER’S STORIES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. With Four 
Illustrations. Square Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s. 

A SERIES OF WALL PICTURES illustrating the New Testament. 
The Set of 16 Pictures, size 22 inches by 19 inches, 12s. 

COTTAGE PICTURES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
A Series of Twenty-eight large folio Engravings, brilliantly coloured by hand. 
The Set, 7s. 6d.—Also from THE NEW TESTAMENT. A Series of Twenty- 
eight. Uniform. The Set, 7s. 6d. 

Upwards of 8,000 Sets of these Cottage Pictures have been sold. | 

TWELVE SACRED PRINTS FOR PAROCHIAL USE. Printed 
in Sepia, with Ornamental Borders. The Set, One Shilling; or each, One Penny. 

Upwards of 100,000 of these Prints have already been sold. 


10 MISCELLANEOUS. 


——— ο΄. —————————e—eeeeensn 


R. GODFREY FAUSSETT, M.A. 
THE SYMMETRY OF TIME: bcing an Outline of Biblical Chron- 


ology adapted to a Continuous Succession of Weeks of Years. From the 
Creation of Adam to the Exodus. By R. Goprrey Favussert, M.A., Student 
of Christ Church. Demy 4to., in wrapper, 10s. 6d. 


THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY. 


THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY, ON THE PRINCIPLES 
OF BENEKE, Stated and Illustrated in a Simple and Popular Manner by 
Dr. G. Rave, Professor in the Medical College, Philadelphia; Fourth Edition, 
considerably Altered, Improved, and Enlarged, by JoHANN GOTTLIEB DREsS- 
LER, late Director of the Normal School at Bautzen. Translated from the 
German. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s. 


REV. CANON GREGORY. 
ARE WE BETTER THAN OUR FATHERS? or, A Comparative 


View of the Social Position of England at the Revolution of 1688, and at the 
Present Time. FOUR LECTURES delivered in St. Paul’s Cathedral. By 
Rosert GREGORY, M.A., Canon of St. Paul’s. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d. 


PROFESSOR GOLDWIN SMITH. 
IRISH HISTORY AND IRISH CHARACTER. Cheap Edition, 
Fcap. 8vo., sewed, 15. 6d. 


LECTURES ON THE STUDY OF HISTORY. Delivered in 
Oxford, 1859—61. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d. 


THE REORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 


By Gotpwin Situ. Post 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 


THE EMPIRE. A Series of Letters published in ‘The Daily 
News,’’ 1862, 1863. Post 8vo., cloth, price 6s. 


MRS. ALGERNON KINGSFORD. 
ROSAMUNDA THE PRINCESS: An Historical Romance of the 


Sixth Century; the Crocus, WATER-REED, Rose and MARIGOLD, PAINTER OF 
Venice, ΝΌΒΙΕ Love, Romance of a Ring, and other Tales. By Mrs. ALGER- 
NON KINGSFoRD. 8vo., cloth, with Twenty-four Illustrations, 6s. 


THE AUTHOR OF “LIFE OF 5. TERESA.” 


THE EXILE FROM PARADISE, translated by the Author of the 
“ Life of S. Teresa.’’ Fcap., cloth, 15. 6d. 


VILHELM THOMSEN. 


THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ANCIENT RUSSIA AND SCAN- 
DINAVIA, and the Origin of the Russian State THREE LECTURES de- 
livered at the Taylor Institution, Oxford, in May, 1876, by Dr. VinuELm 
THOMSEN, Professor at tlle University of Copenhagen. Small 8vo., cloth, 8s. 6d. 

BERNARD BOSANQUET, M.A. 


ATHENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, as Represented in 
Grote’s ‘‘ History of Greece,’’ critically examined by G. F. ScuOMANN: Trans- 
lated, with the Author’s permission, by Bernarp Bosanaquet, M.A., Fellow 
and Tutor of University College, Oxford. 8vo., tloth, 3s. 6d, 


E. C. PHILLIPS, 
THE ORPHANS. By E. ΟΣ Pumirrs. Author of “ Bunchy,” 


“ Birdie and her Dog,’ ‘Hilda and her Doll,” ‘Meyrick’s Promise,” &c. 
Third Edition, revised by the Author, with eight full-page Illustrations. 
Square crown 8vo., cloth, 4s, 





ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHZOLOGY. 11 


OO 





REV. J.C. BLOMFIELD, M.A. 


HISTORY OF THE PRESENT DEANERY OF BICESTER, 
OXON. Compiled by J. C. Buomrrenp, M.A., Rector of Launton, and Rural 
Dean. 84 pp. Medium 4to., in wrapper, with Plans and Woodcuts, 5s. 


SIR G. G. SCOTT, F.S.A. 


GLEANINGS FROM WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By Sr Grorer 
GILBERT Scort, R.A., F.S.A. With Appendices supplying Further Particu- 
lars, and completing the History of the Abbey Buildings, by Several Writers. 
Second Edition, enlarged, containing many new Illustrations by O. Jewitt and 
others. Medium 8vo., 10s. 6d. 


THE LATE CHARLES WINSTON. 


AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIFFERENCE OF STYLE OBSERV- 
ABLE IN ANCIENT GLASS PAINTINGS, especially in England, with 
Hints on Glass Painting, by the late CHarLes Winston. With Corrections and 
Additions by the Author. 2 vols., Medium 8vo., cloth, £1 11s. 6d. 


M. VIOLLET-LE-DUC. 
THE MILITARY ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES. 


Translated from the French of M. Viottet-LE-Duc, by M. Macpgermortt, Esq., 
Architect. With 151 original French Engravings. Second Edition, with a Pre- 
face by J. H. Parker, C.B. Medium 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


JOHN HEWITT. 


ANCIENT ARMOUR AND WEAPONS IN EUROPE. By Joun 
HewirtT. 3 vols., 8vo., £L 115. 6d. 


PROFESSOR STUBBS. 


THE TRACT “DE INVENTIONE SANCTA CRUCIS NOSTRA 
IN MONTE ACUTO ET DE DUCTIONE EJUSDEM APUD WALT- 
HAM,” now first printed from the Manuscript in the British Museum, with In- 
troduction and Notes by Wittiam Stusss, M.A. Royal 8vo., 5s.; Demy 8vo., 
3s. θα. 

THE PRAYER-BOOK CALENDAR, 
THE CALENDAR OF THE PRAYER-BOOK ILLUSTRATED. 


(Comprising the first portion of the ‘*Calendar of the Anglican Church,” with 
additional Illustrations, an Appendix on Emblems, &c.) With Two Hundred 
Engravings from Medieval] Works of Art. Sixth Thousand. Fcap. Svo., cl., 6s. 


OUR ENGLISH HOME: 
Its Early History and Progress. With Notes on the Introduction of 


Domestic Inventions. New Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 


PARISH CHURCH GOODS IN A.D. 1552. 
INVENTORIES OF FURNITURE and Ornaments remaining in 


certain of the Parish Churches of Berks in the last year of the reign of King 
Edward the Sixth: Transcribed from the Original Records, with Introduction and 
Explanatory Notes by Watter Mongy, F.S.A. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d. 


INVENTORY OF FURNITURE and Ornaments in HERTFORD- 
SHIRE, in the last year of the Reign of Edward VI. By J. E. Cussans. 
Crown 8yo., limp cloth, 4s. 


19 ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHEOLOGY. 


JOHN HENRY PARKER, C.B., F.S.A., HON. M.A. OXON. 


AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GOTHIC ARCHI- 
TECTURE. Sixth Edition, Revised and Enlarged, with 200 Illustrations, 
with a Topographical and Glossarial Index. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, ds. 


A CONCISE GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN GRECIAN, 
ROMAN, ITALIAN, AND GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. A New 
Edition, revised. Feap. 8vo., with 470 Illustrations, in ornamental cloth, 7s. 6d. 


ABC OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. Third Edition, with 
Index, square 16mo., with 200 Woodcuts, cloth, 3s. 


«ς Architectural History can only be understood by the eyes— either by seeing the buildings 
themselves, or accurate representations of them arranged in chronological order :—this latter 
has been attempted in the present work.” 


AN ATTEMPT TO DISCRIMINATE THE STYLES OF AR- 
CHITECTURE IN ENGLAND), from the Conquest to the Reformation ; 
with a Sketch of the Grecian and Roman Orders. By the late Thomas Ricx- 
MAN, F.S.A. Seventh Edition, with considerable Additions, chiefly Historical. 
8vo., cloth, 16s. 


DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, FROM 
THE CONQUEST TO HENRY VIII. By the late T. Hupson Turner 
and JoHN Henry Parker, C.B. Second Edition, 4 vols., 8vo., profusely 
Illustrated with nearly 400 Wood and Steel Engravings, full General and Topo- 
graphical Indices, &c., cloth, gilt top, £3 12s. 


THE ARCHAOLOGY OF ROME. 
With Plates, Plans, and Diagrams. 
Part 1. PRIMITIVE FORTIFICATIONS. Second Edition, 8vo., 
with 59 Plates, cloth, 21s. 
Part 2. WALLS AND GATES. Second Edition, nearly ready. 
Part 8. CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS. Second Edit., in the Press. 
Part 4. THE EGYPTIAN OBELISKS. Second Edition, 8vo., cl., 5s. 


Part 5. THE FORUM ROMANUM ET MAGNUM. Second £Eitt., 
Revised and Enlarged, 41 Plates. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


Part 6. THE VIA SACRA, was originally published with Part 5, it 
will now be separated, and the New Edition is nearly ready, with Toe TEMPLE 
oF Roma, THE Caput Vim Sacra, Sacellum Strenize, &c.—Also a complete 
account of the Excavations in Rome from A ἢ. 1485 to the Present Time. 


Part 7. THE COLOSSEUM. 36 Plates, 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 
Part 8. THE AQUEDUCTS OF ANCIENT ROME. 21 Plates, 


8vo., cloth, 15s. 
Part 9. TOMBS IN AND NEAR ROME, and 10. FUNEREAL 
AND EARLY CHRISTIAN SCULPTURE. 39 Plates, 8vo., cloth, 15s. 


Part 11. CHURCH AND ALTAR DECORATIONS AND MOSAIC 
PICTURES IN ROME. 20 Plates, 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d. 


Part 12. THE CATACOMBS OF ROME. 8vo., cloth, 15s. 
Purt 138. EARLY AND MEDIAVAL CASTLES. Nearly ready. 
Part 14. THE MEDIAVAL CHURCHES. Nearly ready. 


THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF THE CITY OF ROME, 


abridged from Mr. Parker’s ‘‘ Archeology of Rome.” For Students. Post 8yvo., 
cloth, with 30 pp. of Illustrations, 6s, 





NEW AND STANDARD EDUCATIONAL WORKS. 13 





THE ANNALS OF ENGLAND. An Epitome of English History. 
From Cotemporary Writers, the Rolls of Parliament, and other Public Records. 
A LIBRARY EDITION, revised and enlarged, with additional Woodcuts. 
8vo., half-bound, 12s. 


THE SCHOOL EDITION OF THE ANNALS OF ENGLAND. 
In Five Half-crown Parts. 1. Britons, Romans, Saxons, Normans. 2. The 
Plantagenets. 8. The Tudors. 4. The Stuarts. 5. The Restoration, to the 
Death of Queen Anne. Feap. 8vo., cloth. 


THE NEW SCHOOL-HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from Early 
Writers and the National Records. By the Author of ‘The Annals of England.” 
Crown 8vo., with Four Maps, limp cloth, 5s.; Coloured Maps, half roan, 6s. 


A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH from its Foundation 
to the Reign of Queen Mary. By M.C.Sraprry. Fourth Edition, revised. 
Crown 8vo., cloth boards, 5s. 


POETARUM SCENICORUM GRASCORUM, Aischyli, Sophoclis, 
Euripidis, et Aristophanis, Fabul, Superstites, et Perditarum Fragmenta. Ex 
recognitione GUIL. DINDOREFII. Editio Quinta. Royal 8vo., cloth, £1 Is. 

THUCYDIDES, with Notes, chiefly Historical and Geographical. 
By the late T. ARNox~D, D.D. With Indices by the late Rev. R. P. G. Tippeman. 
Eighth Edition. 3 vols., 8vo., cloth lettered, £1 16s. 


JELF’S GREEK GRAMMAR.—A Grammar of the Greek Language, 
chiefly from the text of Raphael Kiihner. By Wm. Epw. Jetr, B.D. Fifth 
Edition, with Additions and Corrections. 2 vols. 8vo., £1 10s. 


MADVIG’S LATIN GRAMMAR. A Latin Grammar for the Use 


of Schools. By Professor Mapvic, with additions by the Author. Translated 
by the Rev. G. Woops, M.A. New Edition, with an Index of Authors. 8vo., 
cloth, 12s. 


ERASMI COLLOQUIA SELECTA: Arranged for Translation and 
Re-translation ; adapted for the Use of Boys who have begun the Latin Syntax. 
By Epwarp C. Lowe, D.D., Canon of Ely, and Provost of the College ot 
SS. Mary and John, Lichfield. Feap. 8vo., strong binding, 3s. 


PORTA LATINA: A Selection from Latin Authors, for Translation 
and Re-Translation; arranged in a Progressive Course, as an Introduction to 
the Latin Tongue. By Epwarp C. Lowe, D.D., Editor of Erasmus’ ‘‘ Collo- 
quies,”’ &c. Feap. 8vo., strongly bound, 3s. 


A GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HEBREW PSALTER; 
being an Explanatory Interpretation of Every Word contained in the Book of 
Psalms, intended chiefly for the Use of Beginners in the Study of Hebrew. By 
JoaNA JULIA GRESWELL. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s. 

A FIRST LOGIC BOOK, by Ὁ. P. Cuasz, M.A., Principal of 
St. Mary Hall, Oxford. Small 4to., sewed, 3s. 

NEW AND OLD METHODS OF ETHICS, by F. Y. Encrworru. 
8vo., sewed, 2s. 

Uniform with the Oxford Pocket Classics. 

LAWS OF THE GREEK ACCENTS. By Joun Grirritus, D.D., 

Warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Sixteenth Edition. 16mo., price 6d. 


RUDIMENTARY RULES, with Examples, for the Use of Beginners 
in Greek Prose Composition. By Bishop Mrrcurnson, D.C.L., late Head Master 
of the King’s School, Canterbury, 16mo., sewed, 1s. 


TWELVE RUDIMENTARY RULES FOR LATIN PROSE COM- 


POSITION: with Examples and Exercises, for the use of Beginners. By the 
Rev.E.Moorez,D.D., Principalof St.Edmund Hall, Oxford. Second Hdit.16mo.,6d. 


THE ACCIDENCE or raz GREEK VERB TAUGHT THROUGH 
INFLEXIONS ann ANALYSIS. By S.J. Hutme, M.A., formerly Fellow 
and Tutor of Wadham College, Oxford; Rector of Bourton-on-the-Water, 
Gloucestershire. 126 pp. 16mo., in wrapper, Is. 


14 OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS. 


eee 


A SERIES OF GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS 
FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS. 


GREEK POETS. 




















Cloth. Cloth. 
Hh th 8. d. 
Mschylus . 8 : - 3 0/| Sophocles. : . τ 
Aristophanes. 2 vols. . . 6 O | Homeri Ilias : - eG 
Euripides. 3 vols. ; δ ων. ἢ Odyssea 3 0 
Trageedie Sex . ish τὸ 
GREEK PROSE WRITERS. 
Aristotelis Ethica - . 2 0] Thucydides. 2 vols. 5 0 
Demosthenes de Corona, et g 0 | Xenophontis Memorabilia m 4 
fEschines in Ctesiphontem Anabasis . Θ᾽ Ὁ 
Herodotus. 2 vols. Ε τ, W 


ΠΛῊΝ ΝΡ ΘΗΝ ΠΩΣ: 











Horatius : 3 510270 7 Lueretius: ᾿ 2-0 
Juvenalis et Persius 5 . 1 6 | Phedrus 1 4 
Lucanus : . 5 - 2 6 | Virgilius 2 6 
LATIN PROSE WRITERS. 

Cesaris Commentarii, cum Sup- Ciceronis Tusc. Disp. Lib. V. 2 0 
plementisAuli Hirtii et aliorum 2 6 | Ciceronis Orationes Selecte . 3 6 
— Commentarii de Bello Cornelius Nepos ied 
Gallico . . 1 6] Livius. 4 vols. 6. Ὁ 
Cicero De Officiis, de Senectute, | Sallustius  . : : = tO 
et de Amicitia . : . 2 Ὁ Tacitus. 2 vols. 5 0 


TEXTS WITH SHORT NOTES. 
UNIFORM WITH THE SERIES OF “OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS.” 





GREEK WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES. 





SOPHOCLES. 
HB 5. Ὧν 
AJAX (Text and Notes) ὃ » 1.004 Αντιαονε (Text and N ApEn 1 0 
ELECTRA Ξ τ On| SHO CRE DES 5. τ ἢ 
CEpipus Rex ,, 5 . . 1 O| TracuiIniz = 5 Ε 10 
(Εριρυβ CoLonews ,, 6 ju ils 
The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s. 

AASCHYLUS. 
Pers& (Text and Notes) . . 1 0 | Cnoernor”z (Text and Notes) . 1 0 
PrRoMETHEUS VINCTUS 55 atheimake, a0) | EUMENIDES ‘3 ἃ ae 0 
ΘΈΡΤΕΜ ContRA THEBAS ,, . 1 0 SUFPLICES 3 : ashy 40 
AGAMEMNON oy Se 1 ἢ 

The Notes only, in one yol., cloth, 3s. 6d. 
ARISTOPHANES. 

Tue Knieuts (Text and Notes) 1 0 | ACHARNIANS ἐν and Notes) 1 0 


Tue Birps (Teai and Notes) 0 


NEW SERIES OF ENGLISH NOTES. 15 


ea EEE 








EURIPIDES. 
Ss. d. Sind. 
Hecusa (Text and Notes) - 1 Ὁ] PHa@niss# (Teat and Notes) . | 0 
MEDEA » . ο - 1 ΓΙΑ GESTS 0 
ORESTES Ἢ . . 1 0 | The above, Notes only, i in one yol., cloth, 88. 
HIPPOLYTUS 5» ᾿ τ : 1. 0] Baccnz " ΚΙ 0 
DEMOSTHENES. 
De Corona (Text and Noles) . 2 0O| Onynrurac ORAaTIONS ὁ ἘΠῚ 0 
HOMERUS. XENOPHON. 
Inras, Lts. 1.—vi. (Text and MeEMoRABILIA (Text and Notes) 2 6 
Notes) . . . . e 2 0 ARISTOTLE. 
FESCHINES. De ArtTE Pogertica (Text and 
In CresiPHONTEM (Text and Notes) . cloth, 2s.; sewed 1 6 
Notes) 5 Ξ : On |p DEPRES PUBLIC Amano Ss ie 26. 
LATIN WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES. 
VIRGILIUS. 

Bucouica (Teat and Notes) - 1 Of Hyerpos, Lis. 1.—111. (Text 
GEORGICA ” 6 τὸ and Notes) . . 10 
HORATIUS. 

Carmina, &c. (Text and Notes) 2 0] Eptstor# et Ars Poetica (Test 
SATIRE " ἄρ al {0 and Notes) . : 5 Ut 
The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 2s. 

SALLUSTIUS. 


JuGurtHa (Text and Notes) . 1 6] Cariuina (Text and Notes) el 
M.T. CICERO. 


In Q. Czci1Lt1um — DiviInatTIo In Catininam (Teat and Notes) 1 0 
(Text and Notes) . ς τ τ ΟΡ ιν CHOM. Ξ : cael Ὁ 
In Verrem Actio PRIMA + lL Ὁ) Bro Minone . Ὁ Ό 1.0 
Pro LEGE Seuaaialg et Pro Pro Roscio : I [ἢ 
ARCHIA : ᾿ - 1 Ὁ 7 OrRationEs PHILIPPICR, ite ΤΙ 6 
The above, Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s. 6d. 
De Senectute et De AmicitTiA 1 0 Epistor@ Setectm. ParsI. 1 6 
CASAR. CORNELIUS NEPOS. 
De Betto Gattico, Lis. 1.—111. Lives (Text and Notes) . 1 6 
(Teat and Notes) . . δ: ale PHEDRUS. 
LIVIUS. FaBuLe (Teat and Notes) o le 
Lis. xxt.—xxIv.(Teat and Notes) A CHEW SS 
sewed . . ° ° . 4 0 THe Annats. Notes only, 2vols., 
Ditto in cloth . ς : tt 6 16mo., cloth . - . o 9.0 





Portions of several other Authors are in preparation, 


Uniform with the Oxford Pocket Classics. 


THE LIVES OF THE MOST EMINENT ENGLISH POETS, 
WITH CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR WORKS. By Sa- 
MUEL JOHNSON. 3 vols., 24mo., cloth, 2s. 6d. each. 

THE LIVES OF DRYDEN AND POPE, with Critical Observations 
on their Works. By SaMuEL JoHNSON. 24mo., cloth, 1s. 6d. 

THE SIX CHIEF LIVES OF THE POETS: MILTON, DRYDEN, 
SWIFT, ADDISON, POPE, anp GRAY. By S.Jonnson. 24mo., cloth, 3s. 

CHOICE EXTRACTS FROM MODERN FRENCH AUTHORS, 


for the use of Schools. 18mo., cloth, 3s, 


16 BOOKS, §c.,, RELATING TO OXFORD. 


Eee Oe 


SELECTIONS from the RECORDS of the CITY OF OXFORD, 
with Extracts from other Documents illustrating the Municipal History: 
Henry VIII. to Elizabeth [1509—1583].. Edited, by authority of the Cor- 
poration of the City of Oxford, by the late Witt1am H. Turner, of the 
Bodleian Library; under the direction of Ropert S. Hawkins, late Town 
Clerk. Royal 8vo., cloth, £1 Is. ᾿ 


A HANDBOOK FOR VISITORS TO OXFORD. Illustrated with 


numerous Woodcuts by Jewitt, and Steel Plates by Le Keux. 4 New Edition. 
8vo., cloth, 12s. 


THE VISITOR'S GUIDE TO OXFORD. [Illustrated. Post 


8vo., ls. 


THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY CALENDAR for 1882. Corrected 
to the end of December, 1881. 12mo., cloth, 4s. 6d. 


THE OXFORD TEN-YEAR BOOK: A Complete Register of Uni- 


versity Honours and Distinctions, made up to the end of the Year 1870. 
Crown 8vo., roan, 7s. 6d. 


WYKEHAMICA: a History of Winchester College and Commoners, 
from the Foundation to the Present Day. By the Rev. H. C. ADAMS, M.A., 
late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Post 8vo., cloth, 508 pp., with 
Nineteen Illustrations, 10s. 6d. 


HISTORICAL TALES 


Illustrating the Chief Events in Ecclesiastical History, British and Foreign. 


29 Numbers at One Shilling each, limp cloth; or arranged in 
Six Volumes, cloth lettered, 3s. Gd. each. 


ADDITIONAL VOLUMES TO THE SERIES. 

ENGLAND: Medieval Period. Containing The Orphan of Evesham, or The 
Jews and the Mendicant Orders.—Mark’s Wedding, or Lollardy.—The White 
Rose of Lynden, or The Monks and the Bible.—The Prior’s Ward, or The 
Broken Unity of the Church. By the Rev. H. C. Apams, Vicar of Dry Sand- 
ford; Author of “ Wilton of Cuthbert’s,”’ ‘‘ Schoolboy Honour,” &c. With Four 
I}lustrations on Wood. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 

THE ANDREDS-WEALD, orn THE HOUSE OF MICHELHAM: A Tale of 
the Norman Conquest. By the Rev. A. Ὁ. Crake, B.A., Fellow of the Royal 
Historical Society ; Author of ‘‘ Amilius,” ‘ Alfgar the Dane,’ ὅς. With Four 
Illustrations by Loutsa Taytor. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 


CHEAPER ISSUE OF TALES FOR YOUNG MEN 
AND WOMEN. 


In Six Half-crown Vols., cloth. 

Vol. I. contains F. E. Pacret’s Mother and Son, Wanted a Wife, and Hobson’s 
Choice. 

Vol. II. F. E. Pacet’s Windycote Hall, Squitch, Tenants at Tinkers’ End. 

Vol. III. W. E. HeyGAtTE’s Two Cottages, The Sisters, and Old Jarvis’s Will. 

Vol. 1V. W. E. Heyeare’s James Bright the Shopman, The Politician, Ir- 
revocable. 

Vol. V. R. Kino’s The Strike, and Jonas Clint; N. Brown’s Two to One, and 
False Honour. 

Vol. VI. J. M. Neate’s Railway Accident; E. Monro’s The Recruit, Susan, 
Servants’ Influence, Mary Thomas, or Dissent at Evenly ; H. HayMAn’s Caroline 
Elton, or Vanity and Jealousy. 


Each Volume is bound as a distinct and complete work, and sold 
separately for PRESENTS. 








4 
4: 


ἐφ, 


=i. 











co 
4 
) 
Yay 





ae 


Vol. 


of Anglo-Catholic Theology 


s : a}, a 
Laud, William - Works, 


Library 





NAME OF BORROWER 


DATE 





at 


ae 


| U_ ‘versity of Toronto 


| 
Library | 





DO NOT 
REMOVE 
THE 
CARD 
FROM — 
THIS 
POCKET 


cme Library Card Pocket 
Under Pat. ‘‘Ref. Index File” 
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU 











Me 
at 

1 τ ey eth 

ΘΚ ΡΉ 

Heats 

ale ἢ Mx 

ale ἢ 


pee 
ἼΤΩ 


Eee 
ye ee es 


ae 


τεῦ 


ea 


oe} 


Sold tiselclatd 
ΠΑ Πα με μὴ 


5 
* 


νον es 


Ss 
Tee 
SAAS ψὰ 
“4 . 
ἐν 


+ 
τὰ 


ss 
Se, 


* 
δ᾽ 
elite 


κ᾿ 


+) 
tet, 
Rey y 
“ 


χα, 


OE Ce Ss 


eae 


re) 


ae 


Li wate 
ees 


[2 


celeste 
ἀφ τ γος 
etoleute 
ΟΝ 
Ἢ 


ποῦ 


ra 
as ee 


mate?) 
a) 
<; ΜῊ 
J 


4, «4, 
pny tnt 


be 


ΣΙ 
RnR 
heechxtx 


hyd. 


yr 


Pte 


5) 


ef 


¥ 


tee 


+ 
| τς 4s 
YS etets 


ἢ 
4, 


ἐγ εἰς 
ΤΉΝ 
Warnes! ton 


ES OOG 


that! 
eens ers 
OS's 
SEI, 
3 yr 
= 
bee eed χ ἈΝ ot 
Loe ee te 


ore 


ow) 


εὐ 
ita 
oP) 
SH 


et as 
em 


SAS: 


τὴς 


€ 
. 
eet 
eee 
tisatetlaly 
qty 444, 
4B ΜΉΝ, Ἧ 


14 


~ 
ee, 

cn 
a 
ς 


te 


Me oe 


hate Stem kee em ἐδιδε 
tat ae t,t ε ΡΥ Oe de ted 
Pats δος ἰδ δ κε 4st tase ta e4 
hat sate tata i «ΝΗ ἸΔΩΝ Aste HAG aeasefeta 
Mi rte ᾿ δ ἐ ἐξ 


ah 
43 Ἢ Ἢ eit et td . ate 


ἣ 
Ἂν 


* 
Ce Pa J 
Ἢ H ΚΜ de ; 

Mtasetehanedaea'atelasitche SB ORS SDE SMI Sah 


να 


2 
rs 


τω τσ οὐ 


1 ew 

Mica le Niels 
Bhat tate! ie 

hy ΣΝ on rates 


fy 
> 
ots Mi fy 
: ἀπ νος i 
a) ᾿ 
i) atetatate 
a 


ἀπ ἘΜ ἐν * fy Me ᾿ +14. 
ot, dates ῳ ἀμ 
tte OW Ὁ ας . ie 4 
ds elertatatacatet peat wt) os sisal! : st ἐπ τες eae fat 
=. 


ΝΜ 


ἐν τ τ τ Ὁ 
Sse κὰν ἡ ὦ 


Ty 


ΕἸ 

ΟΝ 

rect 4 418 4 ἂν AA 
aot ¢ *. jae 


a. 


> 


CS ee xt 


Py «ἢ 
+ 


~ 


4 € 

Ast 

ΠΝ 
om, 


es 
τ 


& 


atte ; 
Ἂν ἫΝ os! 
aah fated PPL Ps) 
« oy) Pte hye iy) 
eytedat 


“εἶς 
ΡΣ 


Mats 
ΟΡΎΙΝ 
μενεῖ 

εἰ μλέγας το 





¢ 
. 5 Se 
de EPL Pa eee μος Ah OL eee eT pee, 4 ἐνὶ